Whitaker v. Peet's Coffee, Inc.

Background

Brian Whitaker, who is quadriplegic and uses a wheelchair, visited a Peet’s Coffee in Burlingame, California, in August 2021. He alleged that the location’s outdoor dining surfaces did not comply with disability-access requirements under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Whitaker alleged that he would return once the location complied but was currently deterred from doing so.

Peet’s moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court held limited discovery, including one deposition, and considered evidence beyond the complaint because Peet’s made a factual challenge to jurisdiction.

Standing

The court explained that an ADA plaintiff must show a real and immediate threat of repeated injury. A plaintiff may meet that requirement by showing that alleged ADA violations deterred a visit, but a person who lives far from the business must also show an intent to return to the area and a desire to visit the specific business if it becomes accessible.

Whitaker lived more than 360 miles from the Peet’s location. The court found that he had not identified a specific connection to Burlingame, a specific plan to return there, or a specific reason to return to that Peet’s. His stated plan to visit the Bay Area in July 2021 had already passed, and he testified that he had no specific future return date. He also testified that he had no family, friends, or other specific connection to Burlingame. The court found his reasons—that Burlingame was beautiful and that he enjoyed Peet’s hot chocolate—too vague to establish an imminent injury.

The court rejected Whitaker’s argument that a Ninth Circuit decision had lowered the standing requirement for this type of ADA claim. It concluded that the decision did not require accepting conclusory allegations of future injury in these circumstances.

Other Claim and Disposition

The complaint also asserted a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Because the court dismissed the federal ADA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, it stated that dismissal of the related state-law claim was mandatory.

The court granted Peet’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Whitaker’s ADA claim, dismissed the Unruh Act claim, and dismissed the case. The court stated that leave to amend would be futile, directed the clerk to close the file, and stated that the case was ready for appeal.