Whitaker v. Uma & Tej Inc.

Background

Brian Whitaker alleges that he is a quadriplegic with a C-4 spinal cord injury and uses a wheelchair. He alleges that when he visited Uma & Tej Inc.’s restaurant in August 2021, the restaurant had outdoor dining surfaces without sufficient knee or toe clearance for wheelchair users. He claims that this denied him full and equal access.

Whitaker asserted two causes of action: one under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and one under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and damages under the Unruh Act.

Uma & Tej’s co-chief executive officer stated that the restaurant had inherited two small outdoor tables and four chairs, but the restaurant did not intend to serve food outside. The tables were later used to facilitate contactless takeout delivery, and the company removed the tables and chairs after receiving notice of the lawsuit.

The Court’s Analysis

The court considered Uma & Tej’s motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, while Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether the complaint adequately states a legally sufficient claim.

The court denied the standing challenge. Uma & Tej disputed whether Whitaker was injured, whether its conduct caused the injury, and whether the requested relief could address it. The court found that these arguments depended on facts intertwined with the merits and therefore should not be resolved at the pleading stage. The court also accepted Whitaker’s allegation that he visited the restaurant and concluded that his allegations about intending to return and being deterred by the alleged accessibility violation were sufficient at this stage.

The court also rejected the argument that the case was moot because Uma & Tej had removed the outdoor tables. Although voluntary correction can sometimes eliminate the need for an injunction, the court found that the company’s statements alone did not establish that the alleged violation could not recur, particularly because the correction was not structural. The motion to dismiss the Americans with Disabilities Act claim for lack of standing was therefore denied.

The court denied the challenge to the sufficiency of the Americans with Disabilities Act claim. Whitaker alleged that he encountered an outdoor dining surface lacking adequate clearance for wheelchair users. The court held that this was enough to state a claim at the pleading stage. Whether the surface was actually a dining table or merely a table for takeout pickup was a factual question that could not be resolved on the motion to dismiss.

The court also denied the request to dismiss the Unruh Act claim based on supplemental jurisdiction. It found that Uma & Tej had not identified the novel or unusual state-law issues it claimed existed, and that the Unruh Act claim was based on the alleged Americans with Disabilities Act violation. The court concluded that hearing both claims in one case was more efficient.

Finally, the court declined to certify the constitutional challenge to California’s statutory minimum-damages provision to the California Attorney General. It concluded that the case directly questioned whether the alleged lack of accessible outdoor seating violated the Unruh Act, not whether the Act’s minimum-damages provision was unconstitutional. The court therefore denied the request to strike Whitaker’s request for minimum statutory damages.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to dismiss and denied the request to strike. It also denied Uma & Tej’s request for judicial notice concerning Whitaker’s alleged filing of other lawsuits and related media articles, finding that the asserted serial-litigant status had no bearing on the motion. The court ordered Uma & Tej to file an answer within 21 days and terminated Docket Number 10.