Robinson v. Four Bells Market & Liquor, Inc.

Background

David Robinson, who is paraplegic and uses a wheelchair, alleged that Four Bells Market & Liquor, Inc. failed to provide accessible accommodations. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act based on alleged barriers to accessible parking and access to the business.

After the complaint was filed, the defendant hired Certified Access Specialist and licensed civil engineer Roberto Cortez to inspect the property. Cortez’s reports identified and later documented repairs involving the front-door landing, parking-stall size and slope, a tow-away sign, the lower counter, the path from the sidewalk, and the parking access aisle. Robinson’s expert identified four issues during a joint inspection. Cortez later reported that those barriers had been remedied as of May 31, 2023.

Motion and Analysis

The defendant moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It argued that the ADA claim was moot because the alleged barriers had been removed and that the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

Because the existence of ADA violations affected both jurisdiction and the substance of Robinson’s ADA claim, the court treated the mootness motion as a motion for summary judgment. Under that standard, the defendant had to show that no genuine dispute of material fact existed and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The court found that the defendant’s declarations and Cortez’s inspection reports adequately supported the conclusion that the alleged barriers had been remedied. Robinson did not submit competing evidence. The court rejected his arguments that the motion was premature because discovery was stayed, explaining that the stay did not bar motions under Rule 12(b) and did not prevent voluntary site inspections. The court also rejected his arguments about possible future violations, finding that the structural changes made it clear the alleged conduct was not reasonably likely to recur.

Disposition

The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss as to the ADA claim and found that claim moot. After dismissing the federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Robinson’s remaining Unruh Act claim because the case was at an early stage and retaining the claim would not further judicial economy, convenience, fairness, or comity.

The court granted the motion to dismiss as to the Unruh Act claim as well. That claim was dismissed without prejudice to refiling it in state court. The court therefore granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.