Whitaker v. Chau

Background

Brian Whitaker alleges that he is a quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair. He alleges that he visited Pamela Chau’s Oakland-based restaurant in August 2021 and that the restaurant did not provide wheelchair-accessible dining surfaces as required by Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Specifically, he alleged that the dining surfaces did not provide sufficient toe and knee clearance for wheelchair users.

Arguments and legal standard

Chau moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Chau argued that Whitaker had not provided the exact date and time of his August visit, the names of staff members he encountered, or the specific table where he tried to sit.

The court explained that this level of detail is required for fraud claims under a heightened pleading rule, but not for ADA claims. ADA claims are governed by Rule 8, which requires a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. At this stage, the court had to accept Whitaker’s factual allegations as true. The court concluded that the allegations did more than merely list the elements of an ADA claim and gave Chau notice of how the dining surfaces allegedly prevented Whitaker from full and equal access.

Ruling

Judge Alex G. Tse denied Chau’s motion to dismiss. The court held that Whitaker’s allegations plausibly stated a claim for relief under Title III of the ADA. The court noted that the additional details Chau sought could arise during discovery but did not need to appear in the complaint. Chau’s answer was due by December 17, 2021.