Rojas v. Ci-Vil Enterprises
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:20-cv-00465
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Rojas v. Ci-Vil Enterprises, Judge Cousins denied defendants’ summary-judgment motion, finding the accessibility case was not moot.
Eric Rojas’s ADA and related California-law claims against Ci-Vil Enterprises, Inc., and AK Paladin LLC were allowed to remain pending after the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
What happened
Eric Rojas sued Ci-Vil Enterprises, Inc., and AK Paladin LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act and related California laws. He alleged that a Round Table Pizza restaurant lacked accessible features, including in its restroom, cashier counter, and parking area.
The defendants argued that the case was moot because the restaurant had permanently closed its dine-in services. The court disagreed, explaining that the restaurant could still qualify as a public accommodation because it continued serving food or drink, and that customers could still use the disputed facilities when picking up orders. The court found that meaningful relief remained possible and that genuine disputes about important facts remained.
Judge Cousins denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Because the federal claims were not moot, the court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the California claims and did not dismiss them.
The detailed version
- Rojas v. Ci-Vil Enterprises · No. 5:20-cv-00465
- Nathanael Cousins
- Oct. 28, 2020
Background
Eric Rojas sued Ci-Vil Enterprises, Inc., and AK Paladin LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), California Health and Safety Code § 19955, the California Disabled Persons Act, and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. Rojas alleged that the Round Table Pizza restaurant at 3253 Stevens Creek Boulevard in San Jose lacked accessible features, including an accessible restroom, sufficient parking-area clearances, and an accessible cashier counter.
The restaurant permanently closed its dine-in services in March 2020. The defendants stated that they did not intend to reopen dine-in services or start another business open to the public at the property. They moved for summary judgment on the ground that the case had become moot. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial that is proper only when there is no genuine dispute about an important fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Rojas opposed the motion, and the defendants did not file a reply.
Court’s Analysis
The court first addressed the ADA claim. A case is moot when no live legal dispute remains and the court can no longer provide meaningful relief. The defendants argued that the closure of dine-in services made the claim moot for two reasons: the restaurant was no longer a public accommodation, and Rojas could not face repeated injury in the future.
The court rejected both arguments. It explained that the ADA defines a public accommodation to include a private entity operating a restaurant or another establishment serving food or drink. The statutory definition does not limit restaurants to businesses where food or drink is consumed on site. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Rojas, the court found that the restaurant remained a public accommodation because Rojas stated that it was still open and serving customers.
The court also found a genuine dispute about whether Rojas could suffer repeated injury despite the end of dine-in services. Rojas identified alleged barriers in the restroom, at the cashier counter, and in the parking lot. Customers picking up orders could use those facilities, and Rojas stated that he continued to lack equal access to them. The court therefore found that Rojas still had a possibility of meaningful relief and that the case was not moot.
Because the ADA claim was not moot, the court retained supplemental jurisdiction—authority to hear related state-law claims—involving Rojas’s California claims. The court stated that those claims were not dismissed.
Disposition
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that genuine disputes about important facts remained and that the case was not moot. The order did not dismiss the California law claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.