Whitaker v. Peet's Coffee, Inc.

Background

Brian Whitaker alleged that he is a quadriplegic with a C-4 spinal cord injury who uses a wheelchair for mobility. He alleged that he visited the Peet’s Coffee location at 1140 Lincoln Avenue in San Jose, California, twice in June 2021. According to the complaint, the outdoor dining surfaces lacked sufficient knee or toe clearance for wheelchair users.

Whitaker alleged that he would return to the location once it was represented to him that the facilities were accessible, but that he was currently deterred from returning because he knew about the existing barriers and was uncertain whether other barriers existed. He asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which governs access to privately operated public accommodations, and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought injunctive relief under both statutes, damages under the Unruh Act, and nominal damages for the ADA claim.

Motion and Standing Issues

Peet’s moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and requested an evidentiary hearing. Peet’s challenged Whitaker’s Article III standing both on the face of the complaint and based on outside evidence.

For the facial challenge, Peet’s argued that Whitaker had not adequately pleaded an intent to return to the specific San Jose location or deterrence from returning. The court held that Whitaker’s allegations that he would return once the barriers were removed and was currently deterred by those barriers sufficiently alleged an injury in fact. The court declined to require additional factors concerning proximity, past patronage, the definiteness of return plans, and frequency of travel because the Ninth Circuit had not endorsed those factors and its existing precedent supported Whitaker’s allegations.

For the factual challenge, Peet’s presented evidence concerning Whitaker’s distance from the location, his move to Southern California, and his history of filing ADA lawsuits. Whitaker submitted a sworn declaration stating that he enjoyed Peet’s hot chocolate, frequently visited Peet’s locations, had visited the Bay Area between seven and fifteen times in the prior year, planned to return, and intended to return to the specific San Jose location once it was accessible.

The court found that Whitaker’s declaration directly supported his intent to return and that Peet’s evidence was circumstantial. The court concluded that Whitaker had presented enough evidence to survive the factual challenge to jurisdiction at that stage. The court noted that later discovery could provide a basis for Peet’s to renew its standing challenge.

Evidentiary Hearing

The court acknowledged that an evidentiary hearing may be appropriate in some cases involving factual challenges to an ADA plaintiff’s standing, such as when a declaration is internally inconsistent about important jurisdictional facts. But it concluded that a hearing was not warranted here because Whitaker had unequivocally stated that he intended to return and Peet’s had not presented direct evidence rebutting that intent.

Unruh Act Claim and Disposition

The court stated that an ADA violation constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act as a matter of law. Because the ADA claim could proceed, the court held that the Unruh Act claim could also proceed.

The court denied Peet’s motion to dismiss and request for an evidentiary hearing. It ordered Peet’s to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days of the order.