Rivera v. Crema Coffee Company LLC

Background

Armando Rivera sued Crema Coffee Company LLC, doing business as Crema Coffee Roasting Company, and Ali Farhang. He alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and Part 5.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. Rivera, who is unable to walk and uses a wheelchair, visited the coffeehouse on January 9, 2018. He could not enter because the only route from the sidewalk to the entrance had two sets of stairs.

The parties agreed that the other barriers Rivera had originally identified had been addressed. The remaining disputes concerned the inaccessible route into the coffeehouse and van-accessible parking. Crema Coffee’s corporate representative testified that employees could carry a wheelchair user into the coffeehouse or provide curbside service. At the hearing, however, the defendants conceded that no curbside service was available on the date of Rivera’s visit. They argued that Rivera could instead use another Crema Coffee location about 350 yards away.

The coffeehouse permanently closed shortly before the January 28, 2020 hearing, and the parties represented that it had no plans to reopen at that location.

Summary-judgment standard

The court explained that summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. A fact is material if it could affect the outcome, and a genuine dispute exists when the evidence could reasonably support either side.

ADA claim

The court first addressed mootness, a threshold issue concerning whether a live dispute still exists and whether the federal court has jurisdiction. Title III of the ADA provides injunctive relief for barriers at places of public accommodation, but does not provide damages. Because the coffeehouse had permanently closed and there were no plans to reopen, the court concluded that Rivera’s request for prospective injunctive relief was moot. The court therefore dismissed the ADA claim as moot and, in the order’s disposition, denied Rivera’s motion as to that claim as moot.

Unruh Act claim

The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Rivera’s Unruh Act claim, meaning it retained authority to decide the related state-law claim even after the ADA claim became moot. The court considered the case’s advanced stage and the parties’ substantial efforts in briefing and arguing the motion, along with judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

The court reached the merits of the Unruh Act claim. The parties did not dispute that Rivera was disabled, that the coffeehouse was a place of public accommodation, or that the defendants owned, leased, or operated it at the time of his visit. The parties also agreed that removing the stairs by installing a ramp or wheelchair lift was not readily achievable. The remaining question was whether a readily achievable alternative method of access was available.

The court found that curbside service could have been a readily achievable alternative but was not available on January 9, 2018. It rejected the defendants’ argument that Rivera’s ability to visit another nearby location was an adequate alternative method of accessing the coffeehouse’s goods and services. The court also noted that the defendants had not shown that they informed disabled customers about the other location. It concluded that Rivera established an ADA violation that also constituted an Unruh Act violation, with no genuine dispute requiring a trial.

Damages and disposition

The court awarded Rivera $4,000 in statutory damages for the access barrier he encountered during his January 9, 2018 visit. The defendants were jointly and severally liable, meaning each was responsible for the full amount, subject to the rules governing shared liability.

The court granted in part and denied in part Rivera’s motion for summary judgment as follows: it denied the motion as moot on the ADA claim and granted the motion on the Unruh Act claim, with the $4,000 damages award. Rivera’s third claim under Part 5.5 of the California Health and Safety Code remained pending. The parties were ordered to confer and report whether that claim required a trial.