Hernandez v. Sandhu Brothers Liquor Inc.

Background

Gerardo Hernandez, who uses a wheelchair for mobility, visited Mission Food & Liquor on August 3, 2020. He alleged that he could not find accessible parking and had to use a standard stall without an access aisle. He also alleged that the route from his vehicle to the entrance had uneven asphalt and an improperly configured ramp that made wheelchair travel difficult. He sued the defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California law.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. They argued that Hernandez’s ADA claim was moot because they had remedied the alleged barriers. They also argued that, without the ADA claim, the court lacked jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The opinion states that the parties did not dispute that repairing the parking, pavement, and ramp would be readily achievable; they disputed whether the repairs had actually eliminated the barriers.

Analysis

A claim is moot when later events make it clear that the challenged conduct could not reasonably be expected to happen again. The court could consider evidence outside the complaint because the defendants made a factual challenge to jurisdiction. After the defendants presented that evidence, Hernandez could respond with evidence from other sources.

The court concluded that the defendants’ evidence was not definitive. Their parking diagram showed measurements that could satisfy the ADA standard for a van-accessible parking space, but the declaration did not clearly identify which measurements applied to the actual space. The defendants submitted evidence that they had repaved the parking space, but Hernandez could counter that evidence during jurisdictional discovery. As to the ramp, the defendants’ declarations asserted that it had been built and maintained according to California standards and repaired in November 2020, but the declarations did not identify the applicable ADA ramp standard and were not tied to that standard.

Ruling

Judge Laurel Beeler denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court directed the parties to confer and establish a plan for limited jurisdictional discovery concerning the alleged remediation. The defendants could supplement their declarations and seek another hearing; Hernandez could oppose with evidence. The court also granted Hernandez leave to amend the complaint to name Surjit Sandhu as the tenant instead of Sandhu Brothers Liquor Inc. The opinion does not decide the underlying ADA or California-law claims.