Gastelum v. TJX Companies

Background

Fernando Gastelum, proceeding without a lawyer, sued TJX Companies, doing business as HomeGoods, based on accessibility barriers he said he encountered at a store in Gilroy, California. He alleged that he visited the store on June 30, 2021, and encountered unsecured carpets, protruding objects, aisles narrower than 32 inches, and a restroom door requiring more than five pounds of force to open. Gastelum alleged that these conditions made it harder for him to move through the store and use the restroom in his wheelchair.

Gastelum appeared to assert claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. His complaint sought injunctive relief, statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The court noted that the complaint did not identify specific state-law claims, but its request for $4,000 per violation appeared to refer to the Unruh Act.

TJX moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when the court lacks authority over the subject matter. TJX argued that Gastelum lacked Article III standing, meaning he had not shown a personal injury sufficiently connected to TJX’s conduct and likely to be addressed by a court order.

ADA Standing

The court explained that an ADA plaintiff seeking an injunction must show a real and immediate threat of future injury. Under Ninth Circuit law, a plaintiff may do this by showing either that he was deterred from returning to the facility or that he was injured and intends to return. Bare or conclusory statements about deterrence or an intent to return are not enough.

Gastelum stated that he would not return until the store complied with federal and state disability laws. In his opposition, he said he relied on a deterrence theory rather than an injury-and-intent-to-return theory. The court found that this statement, without additional supporting facts, did not establish a plausible likelihood of future injury or genuine deterrence.

TJX also questioned whether Gastelum had actually visited the store and pointed to other disability-access lawsuits involving alleged visits to California businesses around the same time. The court declined to resolve the factual and credibility issues concerning his visit or motives at this stage. It nevertheless concluded that Gastelum had not established standing under either a return-intent theory or a deterrence theory.

State-Law Claim

After dismissing the ADA claim for lack of standing, the court concluded that it had no authority to retain the state-law claim. The court dismissed that claim without prejudice.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court stated that it could not rule out the possibility that Gastelum might allege additional facts supporting Article III standing. It therefore granted leave to amend. Any amended complaint would need to provide facts supporting his alleged deterrence from returning to the store and identify the specific statutes supporting any state-law claims.

The court granted TJX’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Gastelum was permitted to amend his complaint by February 9, 2022. The court did not decide whether the alleged accessibility barriers violated the ADA or state law.