Estavillo v. Cortese

Background

Erik Estavillo sued Dave Cortese and other defendants under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He alleged that the defendants refused his request for a third parking permit, beyond the two permits customarily allowed for residents at the Country Club Villa Apartments. His complaint sought a declaration that the defendants’ parking policy violated the ADA, an injunction prohibiting enforcement of that policy, and monetary damages.

After the defendants answered the complaint, they sought judgment on the pleadings. Although they referred to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), the court treated the motion as one under Rule 12(c) because the defendants had already filed an answer. The court considered Estavillo’s response and supplemental response.

Standing and Mootness

The defendants argued that Estavillo’s claim was moot because he no longer lived at the Apartments. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff have a sufficient personal stake in a dispute for a federal court to hear it. The court noted that an actual controversy must continue throughout the litigation, not merely exist when the complaint is filed.

Based on the complaint as currently written, the court found it unclear whether an effective remedy remained available after Estavillo moved away. The complaint did not show that the alleged parking policy continued to affect a present interest. The court also noted that private plaintiffs cannot obtain monetary damages under Title III of the ADA. Estavillo asserted in briefing that the defendants had retaliated against and harassed him, but the court said those allegations were not clearly pleaded in the complaint.

ADA Title III Claim

The court separately held that the complaint failed to state a claim under Title III. The court explained that private residential apartments generally are not places of public accommodation covered by Title III. Some portions of a residential facility may be covered if they are available to the general public for rental or use, but Estavillo’s complaint did not allege facts suggesting that the Apartments’ parking areas were available to anyone other than residents or their guests.

The court also found that Estavillo’s general assertions about repeated requests for reasonable accommodations and missing accessibility features were conclusory. Those allegations would not have stated a plausible ADA claim even if the Apartments were a place of public accommodation. The court further concluded that the retaliation and harassment allegations could not proceed because they were not adequately pleaded and lacked a sufficiently pleaded underlying discrimination claim.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed Estavillo’s ADA claim, with leave to amend. The court stated that Estavillo had not shown a basis for concluding that additional facts could state a plausible claim, but allowed an amendment because he had not previously had an opportunity to amend.

Estavillo was permitted to amend only the ADA claim. He could not assert new or additional claims without the defendants’ written consent or permission from the court. Any amended complaint had to be filed by June 20, 2024. The court warned that failure to meet the deadline could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.