Powers v. Mad Vapatory LLC

Background

Douglas Powers brought an action under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He alleged that, during a July 2019 visit to a Vape Affair store in Santa Clara, California, he encountered accessibility barriers involving parking signs, accessible parking, routes from parking and public sidewalks, connections between areas of the property, and an entrance door requiring more than five pounds of force to operate. Powers alleged that he had been disabled since the amputation of his leg and that his physical impairments substantially limited activities such as walking.

Powers sought an injunction under the Americans with Disabilities Act and statutory damages under the Unruh Act. The opinion identifies Margaret and Hazim Petros as pro se defendants who owned the property where the store was located. The federal claim was the only basis for federal jurisdiction, and injunctive relief was the only remedy available under the federal statute.

Defendants’ Motion

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows a party to challenge a federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. They argued that Powers lacked standing and that his Americans with Disabilities Act claim had become moot because the store had permanently closed, vacated the premises, and allegedly had its accessibility barriers remedied. They also argued that some of the accessibility requirements Powers cited did not apply to the property. If the federal claim were dismissed, defendants asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

Standing

The court held that Powers had adequately alleged standing. To establish standing under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must allege an injury that is concrete and personal, that was caused by the defendant’s conduct, and that could be remedied by a favorable decision. Because Powers sought injunctive relief, he also had to show a sufficient likelihood that he would again encounter similar harm.

The court concluded that Powers’s allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage. He alleged that he was disabled because of a leg amputation, encountered specific accessibility barriers related to his disability, and experienced difficulty accessing the facility. The court explained that a barrier need not completely prevent a disabled person from entering or using a facility; it is enough if the barrier interferes with full and equal enjoyment of the facility. Powers also alleged that he intended to continue visiting the facility until the barriers were removed. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

Mootness

The court also declined to dismiss the Americans with Disabilities Act claim as moot. A claim for injunctive relief may become moot when later events make it clear that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably recur and the effects of the alleged violation have been completely and permanently eliminated. Although the store had closed, the Petros defendants acknowledged that they intended to lease the space again and expected it to reopen as a place of public accommodation.

The court found that defendants’ evidence did not clearly establish that all of the alleged barriers had been remedied. Their inspection certificates did not establish compliance with accessibility requirements, and other submissions did not specifically address the barriers Powers identified. Powers’s accessibility specialist reported finding many of the same barriers during a January 2020 inspection. The court also noted continuing disputes about whether certain accessibility requirements applied to the property.

Because the jurisdictional question was closely connected to factual issues going to the merits of the Americans with Disabilities Act claim, the court concluded that the issues were better addressed through a motion for summary judgment, which asks whether undisputed evidence requires judgment without a trial. The court declined to dismiss at that point and instead allowed Powers an opportunity to inspect the property.

Unruh Act Claim and Disposition

The court did not decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim because it had not dismissed the federal claim. In the conclusion, Judge Demarchi stated that defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied. The court reset the deadline for the parties’ joint site inspection to August 20, 2020 and adjusted several other case-management deadlines.