Whitaker v. Peet's Coffee, Inc.

Background

Brian Whitaker brought claims against Peet’s Coffee, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Act. He alleged that he had been denied access to one of Peet’s shops. The opinion does not identify the specific accessibility barrier in the excerpt, but it states that Peet’s later remedied the alleged ADA violation.

Peet’s moved to dismiss on several grounds. It argued that Whitaker lacked standing to seek injunctive relief under the ADA because his allegation that he intended to return to the shop when he filed the lawsuit was false. It also argued that the ADA claim was moot because the alleged barrier had been removed. Finally, Peet’s asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, meaning jurisdiction over the related state-law claim.

Rulings on the Claims

The court dismissed the ADA claim as moot because Whitaker agreed that Peet’s had remedied the alleged violation. The court dismissed the Unruh Act claim because it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, citing a prior related proceeding and Ninth Circuit authority. The opinion does not state that the court resolved Peet’s separate standing argument before dismissing the claims.

Sanctions and Discovery

In a post-hearing brief, Peet’s sought leave to file a sanctions motion based on alleged misconduct by Whitaker and his lawyers. Peet’s alleged that Whitaker falsely claimed he intended to return to the shop, lied under oath about that subject at an evidentiary hearing, prolonged the case by refusing to acknowledge that Peet’s had fixed the alleged violation, and engaged in discovery misconduct.

The court stated that it was not clear whether Peet’s needed permission to file a sanctions motion. The court nevertheless granted leave, to the extent necessary, for Peet’s to seek sanctions against Whitaker and Potter Handy concerning the alleged false intent-to-return allegation and testimony. The court also said Peet’s could include the alleged discovery misconduct and failure to acknowledge that the violation had been cured, although it described those issues as less clear. Any sanctions motion had to be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment under Local Rule 7-8(d).

Disposition

The court granted Peet’s request to dismiss the case, dismissed the discovery dispute as moot, and stated that judgment would be entered accordingly. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.