Whitaker v. TJ Technology LLC

Background

Brian Whitaker alleged that he uses a wheelchair and visited Fix Bee, a cell phone repair shop owned by TJ Technology LLC, in November 2021. He said the shop did not have a wheelchair-accessible sales counter. According to the complaint, the sales counter was approximately 42 inches above the ground. Although the shop had a lower surface, Whitaker alleged that it was a workshop bench used to repair devices and did not have a sales machine. He said he struggled to complete his transaction at the higher counter.

Whitaker sued TJ Technology under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He alleged that he would return to Fix Bee once it complied with disability-access laws but was currently deterred from returning because he knew about the existing barrier.

Motion and Legal Issue

TJ Technology moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows a defendant to challenge the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Its primary argument was that Whitaker had not adequately alleged a likelihood of future injury because he had not sufficiently shown an intent to return to Fix Bee. TJ Technology pointed to Whitaker’s ADA lawsuits against other businesses, the distance between his apartment and Fix Bee, and the absence of allegations that he had previously patronized another Fix Bee shop or had concrete plans to return. It also argued that Whitaker had no reason to be deterred from returning, citing a state-court judge’s finding concerning Whitaker’s alleged difficulty using a counter at a restaurant.

TJ Technology also stated near the end of its motion that the Fix Bee sales counter had recently been lowered to 36 inches, allegedly making the case moot. The court addressed that assertion but did not treat it as a sufficient basis for dismissal.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that federal courts have jurisdiction only over actual cases or controversies, which requires a plaintiff to have standing. Standing requires an injury that is concrete and particularized, actual or imminent, fairly traceable to the defendant, and likely to be remedied by a favorable decision.

Because an injunction is the only remedy available under the ADA, Whitaker also had to show a sufficient likelihood that he would again face a similar violation. Under Ninth Circuit law, an ADA plaintiff may do this by showing either that he intends to return to a noncompliant public accommodation or that he is deterred from visiting it because he encountered disability-related barriers there.

The court held that Whitaker’s allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage. He alleged that he visited Fix Bee, encountered the 42-inch sales counter, was deterred from returning, and would return to use the business’s goods and services and to check compliance after being told that the facilities were accessible. The court said TJ Technology’s arguments primarily concerned Whitaker’s credibility. At this stage, the court limited its review to the pleadings and explained that general factual allegations could be sufficient before evidence was required.

Regarding the alleged lowering of the counter, the court stated that TJ Technology’s unsupported assertion was not enough to justify dismissal. The court added that, assuming the assertion was true, further litigation might not be necessary and the parties should resolve the matter then.

Disposition

The court denied TJ Technology’s motion to dismiss. The opinion resolved the standing challenge at the pleading stage; it did not decide whether TJ Technology ultimately violated the ADA or the Unruh Act.