Whitaker v. VNAP, LLC

Background

Brian Whitaker uses a wheelchair for mobility. He visited Village Pizzeria in October 2021 intending to use its goods or services and, in part, to determine whether it complied with disability-access laws. Whitaker alleged that VNAP, LLC and Van Ness Pizzeria Inc. failed to provide wheelchair-accessible outdoor dining surfaces and accessible entrance-door hardware. He also alleged that he intended to return but was deterred by existing and unknown barriers.

Whitaker sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits a challenge to the federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

ADA Claim

The defendants argued that Whitaker’s ADA claim was moot because they had removed or remedied the barriers identified in the complaint. The court explained that it could consider evidence outside the complaint when deciding a factual challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction. Because the jurisdictional question was intertwined with the alleged ADA violations, the court applied the standard used for summary judgment, granting dismissal only if the material jurisdictional facts were undisputed and the defendants were entitled to prevail as a matter of law.

The court found that Whitaker did not provide evidence showing a genuine factual dispute. He had not conducted the available joint site inspection, sought an order compelling that inspection, or requested more time supported by good cause. He also did not identify additional discovery that could create a factual dispute.

The defendants submitted a declaration from Dwight Ashdown, a California Certified Access Specialist. After two inspections of the property’s one outdoor table and entrance-door handle, Ashdown concluded that the alleged barriers complied with ADA standards. His declaration included the applicable standards, his methodology, measurements, photographs, and explanations of his conclusions. The court found this evidence persuasive and found no evidence that the defendants had a history of ADA violations or that the alleged violations were reasonably likely to recur.

The court therefore found that the ADA claim was moot and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss as to that claim.

Unruh Act Claim

The defendants asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Whitaker’s Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims, but the court may decline it after dismissing all claims over which it had original federal jurisdiction.

After dismissing the ADA claim, the court declined to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. It concluded that doing so would not further judicial economy, convenience, fairness, or comity. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss as to the Unruh Act claim and dismissed that claim without prejudice to refiling it in state court.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The ADA claim was dismissed as moot. The Unruh Act claim was dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.