Whitaker v. Cumaica Corporation

Background

Brian Whitaker sued Cumaica Corporation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He alleged that he is a quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair and that, in September 2021, he visited Cumaica Coffee, which is owned by Cumaica Corporation and located in San Francisco. He alleged that the coffee shop lacked wheelchair-accessible dining surfaces required by the ADA Standards, including sufficient toe and knee clearance.

Whitaker alleged that he would return to Cumaica Coffee to use its goods or services and check compliance with disability-access laws if he were told that the facilities were accessible. He said existing barriers and uncertainty about other barriers currently deterred him from returning. His motion for default judgment was pending when the court issued this order.

Order to Show Cause

The court ordered Whitaker to show cause—meaning to explain—why his ADA claim should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient personal injury that the court can address. The court cited decisions explaining that a private ADA plaintiff generally seeks prospective injunctive relief and must show a likelihood of future injury, such as an intent to return to a noncompliant facility or deterrence from returning because of access barriers.

The court required Whitaker to file a declaration substantiating his claimed intent to return to Cumaica Coffee, or explaining that he would return but for the alleged ADA violation. The declaration also had to provide details supporting his allegation that he visited the establishment, including the precise date of the visit, how many other businesses he visited that day, and where those businesses were located. The court stated that it might hold an evidentiary hearing to test the truth of the jurisdictional allegations. It also gave Cumaica Corporation an opportunity to conduct discovery concerning standing.

The court separately ordered Whitaker to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is the federal court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim alongside a federal claim. The court noted that, in a case involving a “high-frequency” litigant asserting an Unruh Act claim with an ADA claim, exceptional circumstances will typically justify dismissing the state-law claim.

Effect of the Order

The court did not dismiss the action in this order. It required Whitaker to respond within three weeks. The court stated that failure to respond would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. In the meantime, it vacated all other deadlines, including the hearing on the pending motion for default judgment, and temporarily relieved the parties from the requirements of General Order 56. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order.