Whitaker v. Ohanessian
- Sallie Kim
- 3:19-cv-07183
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Whitaker v. Ohanessian, Judge Kim granted dismissal with leave to amend but kept the state claim in federal court.
Brian Whitaker and the defendants—Krikor Aram Ohanessian, Jennifer Anne Monahan Ohanessian, and C&F Restaurant—were affected. Whitaker’s claims were dismissed at the pleading stage with leave to amend, and his Unruh Act claim remained within the federal court’s supplemental jurisdiction.
What happened
In Whitaker v. Ohanessian, Brian Whitaker alleged that a restaurant owned by the defendants did not provide accessible dining surfaces. Whitaker, who uses a wheelchair because of a spinal cord injury, brought a federal disability claim and a state claim seeking damages.
The court found that Whitaker did not provide enough facts explaining where the barrier was, how the dining surface was inaccessible, or how it affected his access to the restaurant. It granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court also denied the defendants’ alternative request to send the state claim out of federal court.
Judge Sallie Kim ruled that the federal and state claims involved nearly the same facts and evidence, so the state claim did not override the federal claim. Whitaker could file an amended complaint by January 29, 2020.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Ohanessian · No. 3:19-cv-07183
- Sallie Kim
- Jan. 8, 2020
Background
Brian Whitaker alleged that he visited China Fun Express in September 2019 and that the restaurant’s owners failed to provide accessible dining surfaces. He alleged that he has a C-4 spinal cord injury, is quadriplegic, and uses a wheelchair. His complaint asserted a claim for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a claim for damages under California’s Unruh Act.
Motion to Dismiss
The defendants argued that the complaint did not allege enough facts to state either claim. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss a complaint that does not state a legally sufficient claim for relief. The court agreed that Whitaker alleged only the conclusion that the dining surfaces were inaccessible. He did not identify where the alleged barrier was, explain how the surface was inaccessible, or allege how it denied him full and complete access to the restaurant’s services.
The order’s opening states that the defendants’ motion was granted in part and denied in part. In the analysis and conclusion, the court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend, meaning Whitaker was allowed to file an amended complaint. The court set January 29, 2020, as the deadline for any amended complaint.
Supplemental Jurisdiction
The defendants alternatively asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim in the same case as a federal claim. The court determined that the ADA and Unruh Act claims arose from the same visit to the restaurant and the same alleged accessibility barrier.
The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that the Unruh Act claim substantially predominated over the ADA claim or that exceptional circumstances justified declining jurisdiction. Although the Unruh Act could provide broader remedies, the court found that the proof needed for both claims was nearly identical. It also found that keeping the claims together promoted fairness, efficiency, and judicial economy. Judge Sallie Kim therefore denied the defendants’ alternative motion to decline supplemental jurisdiction.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.