Whitaker v. Alice & Olivia California Holdings LLC
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:21-cv-08106
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Whitaker v. Alice & Olivia, Judge Chhabria dismissed the ADA claim with leave to amend and sent the state claim to state court.
Brian Whitaker’s federal ADA claim was dismissed with leave to amend, while his Unruh Act claim was dismissed without leave to amend but without prejudice to refiling in state court. The case’s deadlines and hearings were vacated, and an amended complaint was due within 14 days.
What happened
In Whitaker v. Alice & Olivia California Holdings LLC, Brian Whitaker alleged that a clothing-store lounge table lacked enough knee and toe clearance for wheelchair users. He brought a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and a claim under California’s Unruh Act.
The court said Whitaker did not allege that the table denied him full and equal enjoyment of the store. The accessibility rule he cited applies when space beneath a table is part of the clear floor or turning space, but he alleged only that he could not use the table—not that it interfered with navigating the store.
Judge Chhabria granted the motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the ADA claim with leave to amend and dismissed the Unruh Act claim without leave to amend, but without prejudice to refiling it in state court. The court vacated all deadlines and hearings and gave Whitaker 14 days to file an amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. Alice & Olivia California Holdings LLC · No. 3:21-cv-08106
- Vince Chhabria
- Apr. 18, 2022
Background
Brian Whitaker sued Alice & Olivia California Holdings LLC after encountering a lounge table at the defendant’s clothing store. Whitaker alleged that the table lacked sufficient knee and toe clearance for wheelchair users. He asserted a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a claim under California’s Unruh Act.
ADA Claim
The court explained that an ADA claim based on a physical barrier generally depends on whether the plaintiff identifies a violation of federal accessible-design guidance. Federal guidance does not require every table in a public accommodation to be accessible because some tables may be decorative or intended only to hold belongings.
Whitaker relied on a regulation requiring knee and toe clearance where space beneath a table is included as part of clear floor or ground space or turning space. The court concluded that the regulation was not implicated by Whitaker’s allegations. He did not allege a floor-clearance problem or that the table interfered with his ability to navigate the store; he alleged only that he could not use the table. Because he did not allege that he was denied full and equal enjoyment of the store, the court dismissed the ADA claim.
Unruh Act Claim and Disposition
The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is the federal court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim along with a federal claim. The court found exceptional circumstances based on its description of Whitaker as a frequent filer of ADA and Unruh Act claims seeking federal jurisdiction to circumvent California procedural barriers to those suits.
Judge Chhabria granted the motion to dismiss. The ADA claim was dismissed with leave to amend. The Unruh Act claim was dismissed without leave to amend, but without prejudice to refiling in state court. All deadlines and hearings were vacated, and any amended complaint was due within 14 days of the order. If no complaint was filed, the Clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.