Whitaker v. Oak and Fort Enterprise, Inc

Background

Brian Whitaker alleged that he is a level C-4 quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair. He alleged that he visited Oak and Fort’s store in January 2021 and could not use the store’s accessible sales counter because a clothing rack blocked it. Whitaker’s investigator later submitted photographs showing the counter blocked on January 21, 2021.

Oak and Fort’s counsel stated during a July 7, 2021 site inspection that the counter was then compliant and that the rack had been moved. The company later hired Certified Access Specialist Bassam Altwal, who certified that the store complied with the 2010 accessibility standards and the 2013 California Building Code.

ADA Claim

Oak and Fort moved to dismiss the ADA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the claim was moot because the alleged obstruction had been removed. Mootness means that later events have eliminated the dispute requiring court relief.

The court explained that whether the alleged ADA violation continued affected both federal jurisdiction and the substance of the ADA claim. It therefore treated the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows there is no genuine dispute about a material fact.

The court denied the motion. It found that Oak and Fort had not provided enough evidence to show that the alleged obstruction could not reasonably recur. In particular, the company did not describe steps designed to ensure that the accessible sales counter would not be blocked again. The court concluded that the company had not met its burden of showing that its voluntary compliance made the ADA claim moot.

Unruh Act Claim

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Whitaker’s Unruh Act claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim together with a federal claim. The court found exceptional circumstances supporting that decision, including the early stage of the case and the circumstances discussed in the opinion concerning Whitaker’s filing of ADA and Unruh Act claims.

The court dismissed the Unruh Act claim without prejudice to refiling in state court. The opinion did not dismiss the ADA claim.

Further Order and Disposition

The court ordered Whitaker, within ten days, either to file a motion or stipulation dismissing his ADA claim or to file a status report stating that he wanted to continue pursuing it in federal court. If he chose to continue, the court indicated that Oak and Fort could seek jurisdictional discovery before ordinary discovery on mootness and other issues. The court also stated that such discovery could address, among other matters, Whitaker’s intent to return to the store and whether he personally visited it.

Judge Edward J. Davila denied Oak and Fort’s motion to dismiss the ADA claim and dismissed Whitaker’s Unruh Act claim without prejudice to refiling in state court.