Whitaker v. AllSaints Spitalfields USA Retail LTD

Background

Brian Whitaker sued AllSaints Spitalfields USA Retail LTD under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Whitaker alleged that he uses a wheelchair because of a C-4 spinal cord injury and that he visited AllSaints’ store in the Stanford Shopping Center in April 2021.

Whitaker alleged that the store had lounge tables without sufficient knee or toe clearance for wheelchair users and lacked wheelchair-accessible paths of travel. He alleged that he personally encountered these barriers, that they denied him full and equal access and caused difficulty and discomfort, and that he was deterred from returning. He sought injunctive relief under both statutes and damages under the Unruh Act.

Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional challenge

AllSaints argued that the complaint did not establish Article III standing, which is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show an actual injury, a connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a remedy the court can provide. AllSaints specifically challenged whether Whitaker alleged an injury in fact or a sufficient likelihood of future injury to seek an injunction.

The court held that Whitaker adequately alleged an injury in fact because he alleged that he uses a wheelchair, visited the store, personally encountered disability-related barriers, and was deterred from returning. The court also held that he adequately alleged a likelihood of future injury because he alleged that the barriers deterred him from returning and that he would return once the store was represented to him as accessible.

The court rejected AllSaints’ argument that an ADA claim concerning inaccessible tables could be based only on fixed or built-in tables. It concluded that discrimination against wheelchair users involving freestanding tables may support an ADA claim even without a regulation specifically governing those tables. The court noted that if particular accessibility standards later are found to apply, those specific standards will govern the claim.

The motion to dismiss the ADA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was DENIED. Because the court retained original jurisdiction over the ADA claim, it also denied AllSaints’ request to dismiss the Unruh Act claim on jurisdictional grounds. The motion to dismiss the Unruh Act claim on jurisdictional grounds was DENIED.

Rule 12(b)(6) challenge

AllSaints also moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court explained that an ADA architectural-barrier claim requires allegations that the plaintiff is disabled, the defendant operates a place of public accommodation, the plaintiff was denied access because of the disability, the facility has an ADA-prohibited architectural barrier, and removing the barrier is readily achievable.

The court stated that the Unruh Act is coextensive with the ADA for purposes relevant here, so an adequately stated ADA claim also states an Unruh Act claim. The court declined to accept AllSaints’ argument that inaccessible freestanding tables cannot be ADA architectural barriers. AllSaints did not challenge under Rule 12(b)(6) the adequacy of Whitaker’s claim concerning inaccessible paths of travel.

The motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) was DENIED.

Disposition

The court ordered that AllSaints’ motion to dismiss was DENIED. It directed AllSaints to file an answer by February 18, 2022, and terminated the motion docketed as ECF 13.