Whitaker v. Del Mateo Rental LLC

Background

Brian Whitaker alleged that he has quadriplegia, uses a wheelchair, and was unable to enter defendants’ retail store. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Act.

Motion to Dismiss

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. Their motion relied heavily on facts outside the pleadings and attempted to establish at the pleading stage that the store could not be modified to provide access to wheelchair users.

The court explained that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim; it is not ordinarily a procedure for resolving factual disputes. Whether modifications to the store were readily achievable was a factual issue that required Whitaker to have an opportunity to conduct discovery before the factfinder determined the issue.

Defendants argued that the court could consider evidence outside the pleadings when deciding a factual challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). The court rejected that argument here, concluding that the submitted evidence concerned the merits of the claims rather than the threshold question of jurisdiction.

Standing and Jurisdiction

The court held that Whitaker adequately alleged an injury in fact—the inability to enter the store—that could be remedied by a favorable decision. It concluded that it had jurisdiction over the Americans with Disabilities Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

Disposition

Judge Alex G. Tse denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The opinion did not decide whether the requested store modifications were readily achievable.