Love v. Kardooni

Background

Samuel Love alleged that he is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair and that, during an August 2019 visit to the defendants’ business, Pit Stop, he encountered a lack of accessible parking. He asserted a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The opinion states that the Unruh Act claim was pleaded as entirely dependent on the ADA claim.

The defendants were Reza Kardooni, Cathleen Kardooni, and Redline Motor Sport LLC. They moved for summary judgment, which is a request to resolve claims because the undisputed facts require judgment without a trial. Love moved for permission to file a first amended complaint.

Summary judgment

The defendants argued that the ADA does not require a business to provide accessible parking if the business provides no parking. Love did not dispute that legal argument. The defendants also submitted evidence that Pit Stop had no parking of any kind on its premises, and Love stipulated that the defendants had provided no parking—accessible or otherwise—during the relevant period.

The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The order does not add a prejudice designation to that ruling.

Proposed amended claims

Love sought to add a claim based on the alleged failure to provide an accessible passenger loading zone. The court found amendment futile, meaning the proposed claim could not proceed on the facts and law presented. The court explained that the ADA Standards require a passenger loading zone for three specified types of facilities: licensed medical-care or licensed long-term-care facilities where stays exceed 24 hours, parking facilities that provide valet parking, and mechanical-access parking garages. The opinion states that Pit Stop was not one of those three types of businesses.

Love also sought to add a claim concerning an allegedly inaccessible parking space that defendants installed after his August 2019 visit. The court found that amendment futile because Love did not return to Pit Stop and therefore did not encounter that alleged barrier. The court also stated that Love could not rely on a theory that his earlier visit deterred him from returning because he had not encountered a legally recognized ADA barrier during that visit. In addition, the court found that any request for an injunction concerning the later-installed space was moot because the space had been removed.

Discovery request and disposition

Love argued that the court should deny or postpone summary judgment so he could conduct additional discovery. The court rejected that request because the discovery concerned claims in the proposed amended complaint, and the court had already determined that those claims were futile.

The conclusion states: (1) the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted, and (2) Love’s motion for leave to amend was denied. Judge Chesney signed the order on March 18, 2021.