Whitaker v. John's of Willow Glen Inc.

Background

Brian Whitaker, who uses a wheelchair for mobility, sued John’s of Willow Glen, Inc., which owns a restaurant by the same name in San Jose, California. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Whitaker alleged that, during his visits, the restaurant did not provide wheelchair-accessible outdoor dining surfaces, including surfaces with adequate knee or toe clearance.

The defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The defendant submitted declarations stating that its owner had purchased ADA-compliant outdoor tables before Whitaker’s visit and that a certified access specialist later found the indoor and outdoor dining surfaces compliant.

Rule 12(b)(1) ruling

The defendant made a factual challenge to Whitaker’s standing. The court explained that standing can be lost if the defendant has remedied all ADA violations, but it said a court cannot resolve disputed material facts at the motion-to-dismiss stage when the jurisdictional issue overlaps with the merits.

The court identified disputes about whether Whitaker visited the restaurant, whether he requested an accessible table, whether an ADA violation existed during his visits, and whether the defendant made accessible tables available to customers. Whitaker stated that he visited the restaurant twice in June and found no accessible outdoor tables. The court therefore denied the Rule 12(b)(1) motion because the disputed facts could not be resolved at that stage.

Rule 12(b)(6) ruling and conclusion

Although the defendant said its motion relied on Rule 12(b)(6), its motion papers argued only that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The defendant raised the failure-to-state-a-claim argument for the first time in its reply brief. The court held that the defendant had forfeited that argument and did not decide it on the merits.

The opinion’s opening states that the motion to dismiss was denied as to both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6). Its conclusion instead says that the motion under Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(2) was denied; Rule 12(b)(2) concerns personal jurisdiction and was not discussed in the body of the opinion. The court also denied as moot the request to dismiss Whitaker’s Unruh Act claim for lack of supplemental jurisdiction because the ADA claim remained. The scheduled hearing was vacated.