Whitaker v. Surf and Turf, LLC

Background

Brian Whitaker brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He alleged that Surf and Turf, LLC owns a seafood restaurant in San Francisco and failed to provide wheelchair-accessible dining surfaces. Whitaker alleged that he visited the restaurant in March 2021, encountered insufficient knee or toe clearance under the outside dining surfaces, and was deterred from returning because of those barriers and uncertainty about other barriers. He sought an order requiring compliance with disability-access laws. His Unruh Act claim also sought statutory damages. The complaint stated that he was not asserting a claim under the California Disabled Persons Act.

Motion to dismiss the ADA and Unruh Act claims

Surf and Turf moved to dismiss both claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally valid claim. It argued that Whitaker’s reference to insufficient knee or toe clearance was vague and conclusory.

The court compared Whitaker’s allegations with a Ninth Circuit case in which the plaintiff had alleged only that a business failed to provide accessible service counters, without identifying how the counters were inaccessible. The court found that Whitaker had alleged more: he identified insufficient knee or toe clearance under the restaurant’s outside dining surfaces, a requirement addressed by measurable standards in the ADA’s accessibility rules.

The court acknowledged that Whitaker had not specified whether the lack of clearance resulted from tables that were too low, a barrier under the tables, or insufficient width. It nevertheless held that the allegation of insufficient space under the tables was a factual allegation that had to be treated as true at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court stated that any compliance question could likely be addressed on a later motion for summary judgment, but was not a basis for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). The motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) was denied.

Supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim

Surf and Turf alternatively asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction generally allows a federal court hearing a federal claim to also hear a related state-law claim arising from the same facts. Surf and Turf argued that the Unruh Act claim predominated because Whitaker was primarily motivated by the statutory damages available under state law. It also argued that exceptional circumstances existed because Whitaker had chosen a federal forum to avoid heightened California procedural and pleading requirements for frequent disability-access plaintiffs.

Whitaker argued that he was entitled to a federal forum for his ADA claim and that the parallel Unruh Act claim involved the same facts. The court held that supplemental jurisdiction was appropriate under substantially similar circumstances. It concluded that a plaintiff need not give up a federal forum for an ADA claim or litigate closely related ADA and Unruh Act claims in separate courts. The court also found that Surf and Turf had not provided authority showing that California’s heightened requirements were intended to prevent such claims from proceeding in federal court. The motion to dismiss the Unruh Act claim for lack of jurisdiction was denied.

Motion to strike

Surf and Turf also moved under Rule 12(f) to strike the Unruh Act claim because it would be subject to a motion to strike under a California procedural statute. The court explained that state pleading requirements for disability-discrimination claims do not apply in federal court when they conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It held that striking Whitaker’s claim solely because it would face different procedural barriers in state court would violate the governing federal-state procedure principles. The motion to strike was denied.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to dismiss and strike. Specifically, it denied the Rule 12(b)(6) motion as to the ADA and Unruh Act claims, denied the request to dismiss the Unruh Act claim for lack of jurisdiction, and denied the motion to strike the Unruh Act claim. The court also vacated the hearing previously set for August 6, 2021.