Whitaker v. Giovannotto

Background

Brian Whitaker, who uses a wheelchair for mobility, sued Salvatore Giovannotto, Stella Giovannotto, and Torres & Prado Corp. He alleged that he visited Sanchos Taqueria in April 2021 and encountered dining surfaces that were not wheelchair accessible. He brought a claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which governs access to privately operated public accommodations, and a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Whitaker alleged that he intended to return to Sanchos Taqueria to use its goods or services and determine whether it complied with disability-access laws, but that the existing barriers deterred him from returning.

Motion to Dismiss and Standing

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows a party to challenge a federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. They argued that Whitaker had not adequately pleaded standing, that his intent to return was not credible, and that the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

To seek an injunction under the ADA, a plaintiff must allege a concrete injury and a sufficient likelihood of being harmed again. The court held that Whitaker’s allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage because he alleged that he visited the business, encountered an accessibility barrier, was deterred from returning, and would return once the facility was represented to be accessible.

The defendants relied in part on Whitaker’s litigation history and argued that the number and locations of his other ADA lawsuits undermined his claimed intent to return. The court held that this generalized evidence did not directly address whether he intended to return to Sanchos Taqueria. The court stated that the defendants could test his credibility later if the case progressed, but that his allegations were sufficient for purposes of the motion.

Judicial Notice

The court granted the defendants’ request for judicial notice of listed court filings and public records. It stated, however, that the records were not noticed for the truth of the matters asserted in them.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Because the ADA claim was not dismissed, the court also denied the request to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. The court set a case-management conference for October 20, 2022, and required the parties to file a joint case-management statement by October 13, 2022.