Ketroser v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

Background

David B. Ketroser originally sued 7-Eleven, Inc. and other defendants. His complaint asserted a federal claim for denial of access under the Americans with Disabilities Act and four California state-law claims. After David B. Ketroser died, the court allowed Deidre Kellogg Ketroser, identified as his widow and the personal representative of his estate, to substitute as plaintiff on the surviving claims: damages claims under the California Disabled Persons Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Kellogg Ketroser then sought permission to file a second amended complaint. The proposed complaint would add, in her own name, a federal claim for injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and a state-law claim for injunctive relief under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Court’s reasoning

The defendants argued that the proposed amendment improperly attempted to create supplemental jurisdiction over the estate’s state-law damages claims. The court rejected that argument. It explained that the original complaint included a federal claim and that the court retained discretion to keep jurisdiction over the surviving state-law claims even after the federal claim was extinguished by David B. Ketroser’s death. The court said the issue was instead whether the claims could properly be joined in one lawsuit.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, plaintiffs may join in one action when their claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence and share a question of law or fact. The court found those requirements satisfied. Kellogg Ketroser’s claims and the estate’s claims arose from the same visit to the same public accommodation, and they raised common questions about whether features of the defendants’ premises violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The defendants also argued that the proposed claims did not adequately plead standing and that amendment would therefore be futile. The court concluded that defendants had not shown that any alleged deficiencies could not be cured through further amendment. The court also noted that the amendment would not prejudice defendants, was not unduly delayed, and was not sought in bad faith.

Disposition

Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted Kellogg Ketroser’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. The court ordered her to file the proposed second amended complaint as a separate document no later than May 5, 2020. This order addressed amendment, joinder, and pleading issues; it did not decide the ultimate merits of the disability claims.