Warner v. Delano

Background

Wade Warner sued Dennis Delano after Warner alleged that he was denied access to Fairfax Market on May 30, 2021, because he was not wearing a mask. Warner alleged that he had a medical exemption and could not wear a mask over his face. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, and alleged that he suffered mild emotional distress.

Arguments

Delano moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. Delano argued that Warner had not alleged compliance with guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Marin County Public Health Department, the Town of Fairfax, and Cal-OSHA. Delano also said that the store offered accommodations: a manager offered Warner a mask, offered to shop for him, and asked him to wait outside if he could not wear one. According to Delano, Warner became aggressive, police were called, and Warner was arrested for trespassing after refusing to leave.

Warner argued that his complaint adequately alleged that he had a disability, that Fairfax Market was a place of public accommodation, and that Delano discriminated against him because of his disability. He also argued that the court could not consider evidence outside the complaint at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Court’s analysis

The court stated that it had to accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true and view them favorably to Warner, but it did not have to accept conclusory statements or unreasonable inferences. Under the ADA provisions discussed by the court, a disability includes an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment.

The court found Warner’s allegations insufficient. Warner stated only that he was a disabled individual, had a medical exemption, and could not wear a mask. He did not explain the nature of his disability or how it met the ADA’s statutory definition. The court therefore found that the complaint did not provide enough facts to conclude that Warner was disabled for purposes of the ADA.

The court also expressed significant concerns about the apparent legal theory behind Warner’s claims. It noted that the ADA does not create a blanket exemption from legitimate safety requirements and discussed whether reasonable modifications or the direct-threat limitation might affect the claims. The court did not resolve those additional issues because it found that the disability allegations were insufficient at this stage. The court struck Warner’s separate evidentiary objections because the local rules required evidentiary and procedural objections to be included in the motion briefing.

Disposition

The court held that amendment might cure the pleading deficiency. It therefore GRANTED Delano’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Warner was ordered to file an amended complaint within 21 days if he and his counsel could do so consistently with their obligations under Rule 11. The amended complaint could not add defendants or new claims.