Hendrik Block v. 7-Eleven, Inc

Background

Hendrik Block alleged that 7-Eleven, Inc., Ha To doing business as 7-Eleven #29943, and Southwest Expressway Investors, Ltd. violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California Health and Safety Code section 19959(a). Block alleged that he has limited ability to walk and uses a cane, walker, wheelchair, or electric scooter for mobility.

Block alleged that, during a visit to a facility owned, operated, and/or leased by the defendants, he encountered two barriers: an access aisle next to a designated parking space that was too narrow and dangerously close to a busy driveway, and a large pothole at the base of the curb ramp leading to the entry walkway. He alleged that these barriers prevented or deterred him from visiting the facility and that he would return after the barriers were removed.

Southwest moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Southwest also moved under Rule 12(e) for a more definite statement. In addition, Southwest asked the court to take judicial notice of three Westlaw docket-search documents and the complaint.

Judicial Notice

The court denied Southwest’s request for judicial notice as to all three documents. Although courts may take notice of court filings and public records, the court found that it did not need to consider the Westlaw search results because Block admitted that many people would consider him a “serial ADA plaintiff.” The court also found judicial notice unnecessary for documents filed in the same docket, including the complaint.

Rule 12(b)(6) Motion

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and views them in the plaintiff’s favor at this stage.

The court denied Southwest’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion. For the ADA claim, the court concluded that Block adequately alleged the required elements: that he has a disability under the ADA; that the defendant owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and that he was denied access because of his disability. The court relied on Block’s allegations about his limited ability to walk, his need for mobility equipment, the facility, the narrow parking access aisle, and the pothole. The court also noted Block’s allegation that the defendant failed to make reasonable modifications needed to allow him to visit the facility.

The court rejected Southwest’s argument that Block had to identify specific provisions of the ADA Accessibility Guidelines. The court stated that a plaintiff does not need to plead a specific ADA Accessibility Guidelines violation to state an ADA claim.

The court also concluded that Block adequately pleaded his California claims. Because an ADA violation is a violation of the Unruh Act, the court found that the complaint adequately stated an Unruh Act claim. The court further found that Block adequately stated a Health and Safety Code claim based on alleged violations of California accessibility requirements. Block alleged that the facility was designed and constructed after January 26, 1993, and that the barriers prevented him from visiting it.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims along with federal claims. The court denied Southwest’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion seeking dismissal of the state-law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

The court found that the state and federal claims arose from a common set of operative facts and that none of the statutory exceptions requiring or permitting the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction applied. Although the Unruh Act allows monetary damages while the ADA allows injunctive relief, the court held that this difference alone did not mean the state-law claims substantially predominated over the ADA claim. The court also considered judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts, and concluded that those considerations favored retaining jurisdiction.

More Definite Statement

A motion for a more definite statement asks the court to require clarification when a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the responding party cannot reasonably prepare a response. The court denied Southwest’s Rule 12(e) motion because the complaint was specific enough to inform Southwest of the substance of the claims. The court found that the complaint identified the alleged barriers and explained how they were claimed to prevent Block from visiting the facility.

Disposition

The court denied Southwest’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), denied its motion to dismiss the state-law claims under Rule 12(b)(1), denied its motion for a more definite statement, and denied its request for judicial notice. The opinion did not decide whether Block would ultimately prove his claims; it decided that the claims could proceed based on the allegations in the complaint.