Garcia v. Dudum

Background

Orlando Garcia sued Jack and Sylvia Dudum, described as the trustees and owners of the property at 2412 Webb Avenue in Alameda, California, and Michael Lee, described as the owner of the Sandwich Board at that property. Garcia alleged that he encountered two accessibility barriers during a May 2021 visit: the lack of a wheelchair-accessible counter and the lack of wheelchair-accessible dining surfaces. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). They argued that Garcia should be declared a vexatious litigant, that his ADA claims were moot because the alleged barriers had been voluntarily removed, and that the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

Scheduling order

The court found that the parties had not conducted the joint site inspection required by the July 1, 2021 scheduling order. It ordered them to complete that inspection by December 17, 2021 and to comply with the other deadlines in that scheduling order.

Conversion to summary judgment

The court explained that a private plaintiff may seek only injunctive relief under the ADA, and that removing alleged barriers before trial can moot an ADA claim if no real and immediate threat of future injury remains. Defendants relied on a declaration from Gary Layman, a certified access specialist, to support their argument that the property had become ADA-compliant.

The court treated defendants’ mootness argument as a factual challenge involving evidence outside the complaint. Ordinarily, a court may consider such evidence when deciding a factual jurisdictional challenge without converting the motion. But when the jurisdictional question and the merits are intertwined, the court must apply the summary-judgment standard. The court concluded that whether the property violated the ADA determined both the court’s jurisdiction and Garcia’s substantive claim for relief. It therefore converted the motion to dismiss on mootness grounds into a motion for summary judgment.

The court found Layman’s declaration too conclusory to establish ADA compliance. It stated that the declaration needed factual information about the features examined, the standards applied, and, potentially, photographs. The court did not decide the ultimate mootness or ADA-compliance questions in this order.

Disposition

The court ordered the joint site inspection and compliance with the scheduling order. After the parties complied, defendants were granted leave to file a motion for summary judgment as discussed in the opinion. The court denied defendants’ motion to declare Garcia a vexatious litigant and denied their request for supplemental briefing on that issue. The opinion does not state a final disposition of the ADA or Unruh Act claims.