Zamora v. Wendy's International, LLC
- Lucy Koh
- 5:19-cv-06133
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 13
Zamora v. Wendy’s, Judge Koh granted Wendy’s motion to dismiss the ADA and Unruh Act claims, allowing plaintiffs to amend.
The four named plaintiffs with visual impairments and the proposed California classes were affected by dismissal of the ADA and Unruh Act claims, although the plaintiffs were allowed to amend. Wendy's International, LLC obtained dismissal at the pleading stage, subject to the permitted amendment.
What happened
In Zamora v. Wendy’s International, LLC, four plaintiffs with visual impairments alleged that Wendy’s violated federal and California disability laws because some restaurants offered only drive-through service late at night, which pedestrians could not use. They also sought class certification and declaratory relief.
The court found that the amended complaint did not adequately allege that Wendy’s owned, leased, or operated the four restaurants involved. In particular, it did not identify Wendy’s as the owner or co-owner of those restaurants or describe access-related control that would make Wendy’s an operator under the federal disability law. Because the California claims were based on the federal claims, they also were not adequately stated.
Judge Koh granted Wendy’s motion to dismiss the federal and California claims and gave plaintiffs permission to amend. They had 30 days to file another complaint; otherwise, or if they failed to fix the stated problems, the deficient claims would be dismissed with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Zamora v. Wendy's International, LLC · No. 5:19-cv-06133
- Lucy Koh
- June 25, 2020
Background
Jesse Zamora, Lonia Smith, Roy Rios, and Daniel Onn filed a proposed class action against Wendy's International, LLC. The plaintiffs alleged that they have visual impairments that prevent them from operating motor vehicles. They claimed that, during late-night hours, certain Wendy's restaurants kept their lobbies closed while continuing drive-through service. Because the drive-throughs did not permit pedestrians, the plaintiffs alleged that they could not independently obtain food.
The plaintiffs asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the federal law governing disability access at places of public accommodation, and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. They also sought declaratory relief. The amended complaint alleged that some Wendy's restaurants were owned and operated by Wendy's, while others were co-owned or co-operated with franchisees. It did not identify whether Wendy's owned or co-owned the four specific restaurants visited by the named plaintiffs. It also alleged that Wendy's operated all Wendy's-branded restaurants through a system of rules, but did not describe that system's contents or allege that it gave Wendy's access-related control over the restaurants.
Legal standard
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state enough facts to present a legally plausible claim. At this stage, the court accepts factual allegations as true and views them favorably to the party opposing dismissal, but it does not accept legal conclusions unsupported by facts.
To state a Title III ADA discrimination claim, a plaintiff must allege that the plaintiff has a disability, that the defendant is a private entity owning, leasing, or operating a place of public accommodation, and that the defendant denied public accommodations because of the disability. The parties did not dispute the plaintiffs' disabilities or that Wendy's restaurants are places of public accommodation.
Court's analysis
The court agreed with Wendy's argument that the amended complaint did not adequately allege ownership of the four restaurants at issue. The complaint said only that some Wendy's restaurants were owned by Wendy's and that others were co-owned or co-operated with franchisees. It did not allege that Wendy's owned or co-owned the specific restaurants involved in the case.
The court also concluded that the complaint did not adequately allege that Wendy's operated those restaurants within the meaning of Title III. In this context, operating requires an active and significant degree of control over access-related aspects of the facility. The complaint did not explain whether the Wendy's System controlled when drive-throughs and counters were open, provided a drive-through access protocol, or otherwise gave Wendy's specific control over accessibility. The allegation that the system lacked policies or procedures for serving visually impaired customers did not establish the required control.
The court did not reach Wendy's separate argument that the plaintiffs had failed to allege discrimination based on disability because the inadequate ownership and operation allegations were enough to resolve the motion. Because the Unruh Act claims were based on the ADA claims, the court also found that the plaintiffs had failed to state those claims.
Disposition
The court granted Wendy's motion to dismiss the ADA claims and granted the motion to dismiss the Unruh Act claims. The court granted plaintiffs leave to amend because it determined that amendment would not be futile, cause undue delay, or unfairly prejudice Wendy's, and that the plaintiffs had not acted in bad faith.
The plaintiffs were required to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the order. The order states that failure to file an amended complaint within that period, or failure to cure the identified deficiencies, would result in dismissal of the deficient claims with prejudice. The plaintiffs could not add new causes of action or parties without a stipulation or permission from the court.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.