Whitaker v. Gouveia's Pizza

Background

Brian Whitaker alleged that he is quadriplegic and requires a wheelchair for mobility. He alleged that he visited North Beach Pizza in November 2021 and encountered a lack of wheelchair-accessible outdoor dining surfaces. Gouveia’s Pizza owns the restaurant. Whitaker asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, and alleged that he intended to return after the access barriers were removed.

Motion to Dismiss

Gouveia’s Pizza moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The motion challenged Whitaker’s standing—the requirement that he show a concrete injury connected to the defendant’s conduct that a favorable court decision could remedy. Gouveia’s argued that Whitaker’s intent to return was not genuine, citing his alleged residence 400 miles away, the thousands of Americans with Disabilities Act suits he had initiated, and testimony from several other cases.

The court explained that the motion was at least partly a factual challenge to jurisdiction. Although Whitaker’s complaint, if accepted as true, would be enough under Ninth Circuit precedent to allege standing for injunctive relief, the factual challenge required him to provide evidence supporting his claimed intent to return. Whitaker did not submit a declaration or other affirmative evidence on that point.

Unresolved Jurisdictional Issues

The court also identified an ambiguity in Gouveia’s motion. Some of Gouveia’s arguments appeared to challenge the truth of Whitaker’s allegations, while others appeared to argue that the complaint itself lacked enough detail about concrete plans to revisit the restaurant. Because of that ambiguity, the court declined to rule on the motion immediately and gave Whitaker an opportunity to respond properly to the factual challenge.

The court separately questioned whether it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear a related state-law claim, over Whitaker’s Unruh Act claim even if the federal Americans with Disabilities Act claim continued. The court stated that the Unruh Act claim could be dismissed without prejudice if it declined supplemental jurisdiction, but it did not dismiss that claim in this order.

Order

The court ordered Whitaker to show cause why Gouveia’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion should not be granted and directed him to provide affirmative evidence responsive to the factual challenge. It also ordered him to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim. His response was due October 31, 2022. The court stated that failure to meet the deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b). James Donato deferred ruling on the motion rather than granting or denying it in this order.