Gastelum v. Bain Capital LLC

Background

Fernando Gastelum’s first amended complaint asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He alleged that, during a June 29, 2021 visit to Burlington’s Gilroy store, he encountered three access barriers: a restroom door requiring more than five pounds of force to open, protruding objects that narrowed accessible routes, and routes between merchandise displays that were less than 32 inches wide. He sought injunctive relief, statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The opinion states that Gastelum is missing one leg and uses a wheelchair.

Burlington submitted evidence that it repaired the barriers by October 4, 2021, before Gastelum filed his original complaint. The evidence stated that the restroom door required no more than 4.8 pounds of force, accessible paths were at least 36 inches wide, and no merchandise protruded into those paths. Gastelum did not dispute that the barriers had been removed, but argued that Burlington’s evidence did not show the barriers were absent when he visited the store. The court rejected that argument, explaining that Burlington offered the evidence to show the barriers had been removed before the lawsuit and remained absent, not to deny that they existed during Gastelum’s visit.

ADA Claim and Jurisdiction

Burlington moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court treated the factual mootness challenge under the summary-judgment standard because the jurisdictional question was intertwined with the substance of the ADA claim. A claim is moot when later events completely and permanently eliminate the alleged violation and there is no real and immediate threat that the plaintiff will suffer the same injury again.

The court held that Burlington met its burden to show there was no genuine dispute that the identified barriers had been removed before Gastelum filed the original complaint and still did not exist when Burlington filed its motion. Because private ADA plaintiffs may seek only injunctive relief for removal of access barriers, the court concluded that Gastelum’s ADA claim was moot. The court therefore did not decide Burlington’s alternative argument that Gastelum lacked standing for another reason.

Motion to Supplement

Gastelum sought permission under Rule 15(d) to add allegations about access barriers at Burlington stores in Bakersfield, Fresno, and El Centro, California. Rule 15(d) concerns events occurring after the pleading to be supplemented. The court noted that only the El Centro visit occurred after the first amended complaint was filed, and Gastelum waited about six months after that visit to seek permission without explaining the delay.

The court evaluated the request using factors that include undue delay, bad faith, repeated failure to amend, prejudice, and futility. It found that the unexplained delay favored denial. The court did not find sufficient information to conclude that Gastelum acted in bad faith, and treated that factor as neutral. It also found that the record was not developed enough to decide whether Gastelum lacked standing concerning the three additional stores, but that this factor did not favor him. The court concluded that adding claims involving stores in different judicial districts would not promote judicial economy, particularly because the original Gilroy claim lacked a jurisdictional basis, and found Burlington’s prejudice concern well-taken.

Unruh Act Claim and Disposition

The court explained that the Unruh Act claim was a state-law claim for which the court had no independent original jurisdiction. Because the ADA claim was moot before the case was filed, the court held that it could not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Alternatively, the court said it would have discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction even if the ADA claim had become moot during the case. The court dismissed the Unruh Act claim without prejudice.

The court granted Burlington’s motion to dismiss Gastelum’s first amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction and denied Gastelum’s motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint. The court separately noted that Burlington’s request to have Gastelum declared a vexatious litigant would be addressed in another order.