Garcia v. Dudum

Background

Orlando Garcia sued Jack and Sylvia Dudum, identified as trustees and owners of the property at 2412 Webb Avenue, and Michael Lee, identified as the owner of the Sandwich Board business located there. Garcia alleged that he encountered two accessibility barriers during a May 2021 visit: the lack of a wheelchair-accessible sales counter and the lack of a wheelchair-accessible dining surface while another outdoor seating table was available. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The defendants previously challenged the ADA claim as moot. The court converted that earlier motion into a motion for summary judgment because it relied on evidence outside the complaint, and the court found the initial accessibility inspection declaration too conclusory. After a joint site inspection, the defendants filed their second motion, again arguing that the ADA claim was moot and asking the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim alongside a federal claim.

ADA Claim

The court converted the second motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment because the jurisdictional question and the merits of the ADA claim were intertwined. Under the summary-judgment standard, the defendants had to show that no genuine dispute of material fact remained concerning the alleged barriers.

The court ruled that the defendants’ voluntary remediation had made the ADA claim moot. The evidence showed that the sales counter complied with applicable ADA standards and that the outdoor dining table had been removed, leaving no dining surfaces at the Sandwich Board. The defendants also submitted evidence of an ADA policy manual and a contract for biannual inspections for three years, including inspections to verify that the alleged violations remained remediated and to identify new violations.

The court rejected Garcia’s argument that he should be allowed to investigate additional barriers. It found that his single visit, together with the defendants’ corrective actions and inspection program, did not establish a sufficient likelihood of future harm. The court also found no evidence that the defendants had a history of ADA violations or had known about the barriers before the lawsuit. It therefore granted summary judgment on Garcia’s ADA claim, finding it moot.

Unruh Act Claim

The court stated that curing the alleged barriers did not moot the Unruh Act claim because that claim seeks damages for past harm. However, the Unruh Act claim was a state-law claim before the federal court only through supplemental jurisdiction.

After considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and federal-state comity, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. It relied on both the statutory provision allowing jurisdiction to be declined after all federal claims have been dismissed and the provision concerning exceptional circumstances. The court reasoned that keeping the Unruh Act claim in federal court could allow a plaintiff to avoid California’s heightened pleading requirements for disability-discrimination claims and could adversely affect federal-state comity.

Disposition

The court ordered that: (1) summary judgment was granted as to Garcia’s ADA claim, which was found moot; and (2) the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and dismissed that claim without prejudice to Garcia refiling it in state court. The court also denied as moot the defendants’ separate motion seeking administrative relief from General Order 56.