Hendrik Block v. 7-Eleven, Inc

Background

Hendrik Block sued 7-Eleven, Inc., Ha To doing business as 7-Eleven #29943, and Southwest Expressway Investors, Ltd., a California limited partnership. The case arose from Block’s visit to a 7-Eleven facility at 1430 Fruitdale Avenue in San Jose, California. Block claimed that he tripped and nearly fell over a large pothole in the access aisle at the base of a curb ramp.

Block asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California Health and Safety Code section 19955. He sought an injunction, statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs. After defendants installed an accessible parking stall, access aisle, and curb ramp, they closed the facility to the public. The facility would not reopen as a 7-Eleven or affiliated convenience store.

The parties’ motions

Both sides moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial and that a party is entitled to judgment under the law. Defendants sought summary judgment that Block lacked standing, that his only federal claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act was moot, and that the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to decide related state-law claims accompanying a federal claim.

Block sought summary judgment that defendants were liable under the Unruh Act. Defendants later withdrew their evidentiary objections to Block’s motion. The court sustained Block’s objection to defendants’ separate statement of undisputed facts and did not consider that document.

Standing and mootness

The court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on standing. It explained that standing is assessed based on the facts when the complaint is filed, and the facility was open when Block filed the complaint. The later closure therefore did not eliminate the standing Block had at the start of the case.

The court nevertheless held that Block’s ADA claim was moot. Under Title III of the ADA, a private plaintiff can seek injunctive relief to remove an access barrier, but the permanent closure of the facility meant that no goods, services, or accommodations were being offered there and the facility would never reopen at that location. The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ADA claim. It stated that this ruling did not make factual determinations about whether the alleged ADA violations had occurred.

State-law claims

After granting summary judgment on the ADA claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Block’s remaining state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) and § 1367(c)(4). The court found that the relevant considerations—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for the role of state courts—weighed against retaining the claims. It also relied on the court’s characterization of Block as a “high-frequency” litigant and on the Ninth Circuit’s discussion of the relationship between ADA-based Unruh Act claims and California’s procedures for such cases.

The court dismissed Block’s state-law claims without prejudice to refiling in state court. Because the ADA claim was moot and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, it denied Block’s motion for summary judgment under the Unruh Act as moot.

Order

Judge Beth Freeman ordered: