Whitaker v. DS Bros. LLC
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:21-cv-07087
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Whitaker v. DS Bros. LLC, Judge Seeborg ordered Whitaker to explain why the ADA case should not be dismissed for lack of standing.
Brian Whitaker and DS Bros. LLC; the order specifically required Whitaker to respond and warned that the action would be dismissed with prejudice if he failed to do so.
What happened
In Whitaker v. DS Bros. LLC, Brian Whitaker sought a default judgment against DS Bros. LLC over the accessibility of tables at Babylon, a business that appeared to have closed.
The court raised a concern about whether Whitaker still faced a real threat of future harm, which is required to maintain a federal case. The court noted that the Americans with Disabilities Act allows private plaintiffs to seek only court orders requiring changes, not money damages.
Judge Richard Seeborg ordered Whitaker to explain by September 9, 2022, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of constitutional standing. The order warned that failing to respond would result in dismissal with prejudice; it did not itself dismiss the case or decide the default-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. DS Bros. LLC · No. 3:21-cv-07087
- Richard Seeborg
- Aug. 29, 2022
Background
Brian Whitaker filed a motion for default judgment against DS Bros. LLC concerning the accessibility of tables at Babylon. The court stated that Babylon appeared to have closed.
Court’s concern
The court explained that it must determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction even when no party challenges jurisdiction. It ordered Whitaker to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff have a sufficient personal stake in the dispute, including a real threat of future injury when seeking prospective relief.
The court stated that the Americans with Disabilities Act allows private plaintiffs to sue only for injunctive relief, meaning a court order requiring or prohibiting conduct. Whitaker’s response therefore had to identify the required threat of future injury or another remaining basis for injunctive relief.
Order and effect
Whitaker was required to respond by September 9, 2022. The court stated that failure to respond would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. The opinion is an order to show cause, not a dismissal order: it does not state that the case was dismissed and does not rule on the pending motion for default judgment.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.