Garcia v. The D & C Lee Third Limited Partnership

Background

Orlando Garcia alleged that he has cerebral palsy and cannot walk. He said that, in January 2022, he visited Los Primos Meat Market in San Bruno, California, and 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 defendants were The D & C Lee Third Limited Partnership, D & C Lee Management, LLC, and Las Lunas, Inc. They moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. No opposition was filed.

The court had previously dismissed Garcia’s initial complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because it did not contain facts showing that he intended to return to San Bruno or that he would want or need to purchase meat there. The court gave Garcia an opportunity to address that deficiency in an amended complaint.

Standing Analysis

To establish standing—the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a real or imminent injury—an ADA plaintiff suing over a business located far from home must allege an intent to return to the area and a desire to visit the business if it becomes accessible.

The court found that Garcia’s First Amended Complaint did not allege facts showing an interest in visiting San Bruno, a particularized interest in the meat products sold there, or an intention to return to Los Primos Meat Market. Garcia instead alleged: “Plaintiff is an ADA tester and understands that to maintain standing, he must return to the facility. Therefore, he will.” The court held that this general statement was insufficient because a bare statement of intent, without concrete plans or a time frame, does not establish an actual or imminent injury. The court also noted that Garcia had filed more than 350 ADA complaints in the district during the preceding 16 months and had not alleged facts explaining how he could return to such a large number of distant businesses in the foreseeable future.

Because Garcia failed to establish standing to seek the ADA’s available injunctive relief, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the ADA claim. The court further concluded that the Unruh Act claim had to be dismissed because the ADA claim was the only claim over which Garcia asserted original federal jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed the First Amended Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without further leave to amend.