Garcia v. The D & C Lee Third Limited Partnership
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:22-cv-00914
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Garcia v. The D & C Lee Third Limited Partnership, Judge Chesney granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing, dismissed the complaint, and allowed amendment.
Orlando Garcia and the defendants The D & C Lee Third Limited Partnership, D & C Lee Management, LLC, and Las Lunas, Inc.
What happened
In Garcia v. The D & C Lee Third Limited Partnership, Orlando Garcia alleged that a San Bruno meat market had accessibility barriers, including inaccessible sales counters, paths, and door hardware. He brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The defendants argued that Garcia lacked the required constitutional standing to pursue the federal disability claim because he did not show that he intended to return to San Bruno and visit the market. The court agreed, finding that the Americans with Disabilities Act claim lacked allegations showing a real and immediate risk of future injury. Because that was the only federal claim, the court also dismissed the Unruh Act claim.
Judge Maxine Chesney granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court gave Garcia until May 20, 2022, to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiency, and vacated the scheduled hearing.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. The D & C Lee Third Limited Partnership · No. 3:22-cv-00914
- Maxine Chesney
- Apr. 26, 2022
Background
Orlando Garcia alleged that he has cerebral palsy and cannot walk. He said that, during a January 2022 visit to the Los Primos Meat Market in San Bruno, California, he encountered barriers, including inaccessible sales counters, paths of travel, and door hardware. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The motion to dismiss was filed by The D & C Lee Third Limited Partnership, D & C Lee Management, LLC, and Las Lunas, Inc. Garcia did not file an opposition. The opinion states that Garcia had filed a notice of intent to file a first amended complaint but had not filed that amended complaint.
Standing and the ADA claim
The defendants argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Garcia lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution. At the pleading stage, a plaintiff must allege specific facts supporting standing. For an ADA claim seeking injunctive relief, the plaintiff must allege a real and immediate threat of repeated injury in the future.
The defendants submitted evidence indicating that Garcia lived in or near Pasadena, California. The court described San Bruno as hundreds of miles from the Pasadena area. The court held that Garcia had not alleged facts showing that he intended to return to San Bruno. He also had not alleged that, during a future visit to San Bruno, he would want or need to purchase meat. The court therefore dismissed the ADA claim for lack of standing.
The court granted Garcia leave to amend to attempt to cure the identified deficiency.
Unruh Act claim and disposition
The ADA claim was the only claim over which Garcia asserted that the court had original federal jurisdiction. Because the ADA claim was dismissed for lack of standing, the court held that it could not retain supplemental jurisdiction over Garcia’s Unruh Act claim. The court therefore treated that claim as subject to dismissal as well.
Judge Maxine Chesney granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Garcia’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court allowed Garcia to file an amended complaint addressing the described deficiency by May 20, 2022, and vacated the scheduled hearing.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.