Pomponio v. Brand Motors, LLC

Background

Meryl Pomponio alleged that she has paraneoplastic syndrome, cannot walk, and uses a mobility device. She alleged that she visited Brand Motors in April 2018 intending to use its services or buy products but could not fully access the property. According to the complaint, the parking lot lacked accessible parking spaces, and stairs without ramps prevented her from reaching the entrance.

Pomponio alleged additional accessibility barriers involving parking signs, accessible routes, access aisles, and tactile exit signage. She sued Brand Motors, LLC, and Baku As, whom the complaint identified as the property owner, under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California’s Disabled Persons Act.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally plausible claim. They argued that the property was not a “public accommodation” under the ADA. The court described the defendants’ jurisdictional challenge as both facial and factual, but ultimately dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

Title III of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination in public accommodations. The court explained that an ADA claim requires allegations showing that the plaintiff is disabled, that the defendants own, lease, or operate a place of public accommodation, and that the plaintiff was denied access because of the disability.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the complaint did not plausibly allege that Brand Motors was a public accommodation. Although the complaint asserted that Brand Motors was one, it did not provide facts supporting that conclusion. The court noted that it was not obvious from the allegations that Brand Motors was a public accommodation at the property, particularly given the defendants’ jurisdictional challenge. The court did not decide whether the alleged accessibility barriers violated the ADA.

Because the federal ADA claim was not plausibly pleaded, the court declined at that stage to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over the Unruh Civil Rights Act and Disabled Persons Act claims.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Ms. Pomponio could file an amended complaint by March 16, 2020, and, if she did so, was required to attach a comparison showing changes from the prior complaint. The order stated that it disposed of ECF No. 12.