Whitaker v. Aguilar

Background

Brian Whitaker alleged that he is a quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair. He claimed that Dorcas Y. Aguilar’s restaurant, Cafecito Latino, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act because it did not provide wheelchair-accessible outdoor dining surfaces.

The court had entered a consent decree resolving the injunctive-relief claims. The decree stated that if Aguilar ever provided dining tables, she would provide a specified number of accessible tables. But it did not require her to provide tables at that time or in the future. Aguilar submitted a declaration stating that the restaurant did not currently provide tables or other dining surfaces and that she did not intend to do so.

Aguilar moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that the ADA claim was moot and was not adequately pleaded. She also asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim—over the Unruh Act claim if the ADA claim was dismissed.

ADA Claim and Attorney’s Fees

The court held that the ADA claim was moot. Mootness means that no live dispute remains for which a court can grant effective relief. The court relied on Aguilar’s evidence that Cafecito Latino did not currently offer dining surfaces and on the consent decree’s resolution of the requested injunctive relief.

Whitaker argued that the ADA claim was not moot because he intended to inspect the entire property and seek removal of other barriers. The court found that he offered no evidence showing that additional accessibility barriers remained. It also concluded that the consent decree waived claims for injunctive relief arising from acts or omissions alleged, or that could have been alleged, in the complaint.

The court separately rejected Whitaker’s argument that he remained a prevailing party entitled to attorney’s fees. Under the governing standard, a plaintiff must obtain a material, court-approved change in the parties’ legal relationship. Because the consent decree did not require Aguilar to provide dining surfaces or change conduct she intended to undertake, the court concluded that it did not materially alter the parties’ legal relationship. Whitaker therefore was not a prevailing party under the ADA.

Unruh Act Claim

The court stated that Whitaker’s Unruh Act damages claim remained live because that claim concerns past harm. However, the claim was before the federal court only through supplemental jurisdiction because the ADA claim no longer supplied a live federal claim.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). It reasoned that the litigation was still at an early stage, the court had not considered the merits of the Unruh Act claim, and the relevant interests of the state court outweighed the inefficiencies of requiring the claim to be refiled there.

Disposition

The court granted Aguilar’s motion for judgment on the pleadings because no live claim for injunctive relief remained under the ADA and Whitaker was not entitled to ADA attorney’s fees. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. The case was dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order.