Gastelum v. TJX Companies

Background

Fernando Gastelum, proceeding without a lawyer, sued The TJX Companies, Inc. over alleged accessibility barriers at a HomeGoods store in Gilroy, California, and seven other Marshalls and TJ Maxx stores. He alleged that, as a wheelchair or mobility-scooter user, he encountered unsecured carpets, protruding objects, routes that were too narrow, and a restroom door that required too much force to open. He sought an injunction under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), relief under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, and damages under the Unruh Act.

In an earlier order, the court dismissed his original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because his allegations did not establish standing. The court allowed him to amend. In his second amended complaint, Gastelum added allegations about visits to seven other stores and alleged that he intended to return to the Gilroy HomeGoods store after encountering the barriers.

TJX’s Motion

TJX argued that Gastelum still had not shown standing to seek ADA injunctive relief. It challenged his allegations that he used a wheelchair during the relevant visits and argued that he had not shown a real and immediate threat of being injured again. TJX also argued that the Unruh Act claim should be dismissed or that the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over it.

ADA Standing

The court explained that standing requires an injury that is concrete and particularized, a connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable decision would redress the injury. For ADA injunctive relief, a plaintiff must also show a real and immediate threat of repeated injury. The court stated that this can be shown either through deterrence from returning to a noncompliant facility or through an injury coupled with an intent to return.

The court declined to consider a surveillance video from a different lawsuit because TJX had not provided a proper evidentiary basis for considering it. The court concluded that Gastelum’s allegations, reasonably read, indicated that he used a wheelchair or scooter during the relevant visits and that the alleged barriers created accessibility problems for wheelchair users. Those allegations were sufficient to show disability-related barriers.

The court recognized concerns about whether Gastelum genuinely intended to return to the Gilroy store, particularly because some alleged return visits occurred after the original complaint was filed and after the court dismissed that complaint. The court also noted that the Gilroy store was about 740 miles from Gastelum’s home, that he described generalized travel throughout California, and that the retail chain had other locations closer to him. Nevertheless, relying on a recent Ninth Circuit decision, the court concluded that post-complaint visits could be considered as evidence of intent to return and that visiting a business to identify possible ADA violations can be a legitimate reason to return. The court found no basis to dismiss the ADA claim for lack of standing at this stage.

Claims Concerning Other Stores

The court dismissed, without prejudice, Gastelum’s claims concerning stores other than the Gilroy HomeGoods store. The court explained that his original complaint concerned only the Gilroy store and that the earlier order had allowed amendment to address the deficiencies concerning that store and to identify the statutes supporting any state-law claims. The court concluded that the second amended complaint included allegations about other stores that the court had not permitted him to add. The court also noted that some visits occurred after the lawsuit began and that no party had argued that the new allegations should be treated as a supplemental pleading under Rule 15(d).

Unruh Act and Proposed California Disabled Persons Act Claim

The court did not finally resolve the Unruh Act claim in this order. It ordered Gastelum to show cause why the court should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear a related state-law claim alongside a federal claim. The court cited Ninth Circuit authority describing exceptional concerns about keeping ADA-based Unruh Act cases in federal court because of the effect on California’s state-court procedures and the relationship between federal and state courts.

Gastelum was ordered to respond by February 8, 2023, and TJX could file a reply by February 15, 2023. The court also denied Gastelum’s unexplained request to replace the Unruh Act claim with a claim under the California Disabled Persons Act. The order states that California’s heightened pleading requirement also applies to that proposed claim.

Disposition

The court denied TJX’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss the ADA claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It dismissed, without prejudice, the claims concerning stores other than the Gilroy HomeGoods store. It ordered Gastelum to respond to the order to show cause concerning the Unruh Act claim and denied his request to substitute a California Disabled Persons Act claim.