Whitaker v. 2008 Shattuck Ave, LLC

Background

Brian Whitaker sued 2008 Shattuck Ave, LLC and Chahat. The opinion states that Chahat owns Barbarian Grub and Ale, a restaurant at 2012 Shattuck Avenue in Berkeley, and that 2008 Shattuck Ave, LLC owns the property where the restaurant is located. Whitaker alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Whitaker alleged that the outdoor dining surfaces lacked sufficient knee or toe clearance for wheelchair users. He also alleged that a sales counter was too high and that ice cream freezers obstructed floor space needed by wheelchair users.

Arguments on the Motion

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. They made two arguments. First, they relied on a Ninth Circuit decision involving Whitaker and Tesla Motors, arguing that the complaint lacked enough factual detail. Second, they argued that the ADA provides relevant standards only for fixed-in-place dining tables and that Whitaker did not allege that the restaurant’s tables were fixed.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected the comparison to the Tesla case. In that case, the allegations largely repeated the legal elements of an ADA claim without explaining how the service counters were inaccessible. Here, by contrast, Whitaker identified the alleged accessibility problems: insufficient knee or toe clearance, a counter that was too high, and obstructed floor space.

The court also rejected the argument that the ADA applies only to fixed or built-in tables. Although the cited ADA standards expressly address fixed or built-in elements, the court stated that this does not mean the ADA permits discrimination involving movable or freestanding tables. The court relied on the ADA’s broader requirement that public accommodations provide people with disabilities full and equal enjoyment of their goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations.

The court noted that the ADA may impose obligations even when no regulation specifies a particular design standard. It cited a Ninth Circuit decision stating that the ADA provides comprehensible standards and that the absence of specific regulations does not eliminate an entity’s obligation to comply with the statute. The court did not decide at this stage whether, or to what extent, the ADA standards for knee and toe clearance apply to nonfixed or freestanding tables.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The defendants were ordered to file a response to the complaint within 30 days of the order’s date. The order disposed of Docket No. 14. The ruling allowed Whitaker’s ADA and Unruh Civil Rights Act claims to continue, but it did not decide whether the defendants ultimately violated either law.