Garcia v. Delatorre Properties LLC
- James Donato
- 3:21-cv-09236
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Garcia v. Delatorre Properties, Judge Donato denied the motion to dismiss after finding Garcia had standing to bring his ADA case.
The ruling allows Orlando Garcia's case against Delatorre Properties LLC and the other named defendants to continue past the motion-to-dismiss stage.
What happened
In Garcia v. Delatorre Properties LLC, Orlando Garcia sued over alleged accessibility barriers at a business, including inadequate wheelchair clearance and a door handle he could not use because of manual dexterity issues.
Garcia said he wanted to return but was deterred by those barriers, and that he would return once the business complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The defendants questioned whether his allegations were genuine.
Judge James Donato found these allegations sufficient to establish standing, meaning Garcia had shown a concrete injury and a likely future connection to the barriers. The court denied the motion to dismiss and canceled the scheduled hearing.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. Delatorre Properties LLC · No. 3:21-cv-09236
- James Donato
- Feb. 17, 2022
Background
Orlando Garcia sued Delatorre Properties LLC and other defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Garcia alleged that he encountered accessibility barriers at the business, including insufficient knee or toe clearance beneath outdoor dining surfaces and a traditional round door handle that required tight grasping and wrist twisting. He alleged that his manual dexterity issues prevented him from using the handle.
Garcia also alleged that he wanted to return and patronize the business but was specifically deterred by the barriers, and that he would return once the business became compliant with the Act.
Issue
The court considered whether Garcia had Article III standing, meaning a sufficient personal injury and connection to the challenged conduct to bring the case in federal court.
Ruling
The court held that Garcia's allegations were enough to establish standing. The court explained that an Americans with Disabilities Act plaintiff may show a legally recognizable injury by alleging an intent to return to a noncompliant place and a likelihood of encountering the barrier again, or by alleging that the barrier deterred a return. The defendants' doubts about whether Garcia's allegations were genuine did not defeat standing at this stage.
The court denied the motion to dismiss. It found the motion suitable for decision without oral argument and vacated the hearing scheduled for February 24, 2022. The order addressed standing and did not decide the ultimate merits of Garcia's accessibility claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.