Summary
This is a first screening order in a pro se, in forma pauperis action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and related California tort claims. The court analyzes the sufficiency of the ADA allegations and standing, discusses whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim, and grants the plaintiff leave to amend with a 21-day deadline. The order also requires a response from the plaintiff.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff adequately pleaded an ADA Title III claim and standing based on alleged inaccessible parking, restrooms, sinks, and architectural barriers.
- Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Unruh Act, California Disabled Persons Act, negligence, and related state-law claims.
- Whether Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to identify the supermarket's lessee and cure pleading deficiencies.
Holdings
- Plaintiff failed to adequately plead that he personally encountered accessibility barriers at CaliMex Supermarket, was deterred from returning because of those barriers, and would return if the barriers were remedied. His general allegations concerning what individuals with mobility disabilities might experience were insufficient to establish injury in fact.
- Although Plaintiff adequately alleged that he was disabled and that Saleh and the unnamed lessee owned, leased, or operated a place of public accommodation, he did not adequately allege denial of public accommodations because of his disability.
- At the screening stage, the court concluded that exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons supported declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and related state-law claims if Plaintiff did not adequately cure the ADA and jurisdictional deficiencies.
- The court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and allowed him 21 days to file a first amended complaint identifying Abdullah Corp. as the supermarket's lessee and addressing the pleading deficiencies.
Key quotations
“To show standing, a plaintiff “must demonstrate that he has suffered an injury-in-fact, that the injury is traceable to the [defendant’s] action, and that the injury can be redressed by a favorable decision.”” (at 6)
“The undersigned has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (Doc. 37) and the lodged first amended complaint (Doc. 38) and finds grant of the motion appropriate to allow Plaintiff to name the identified lessee, Abdullah Corp., as a proper Defendant in this action.” (at 14)
Factual background
Plaintiff, who alleges significant mobility limitations and use of a four-wheeled walker, claimed that CaliMex Supermarket had inaccessible restrooms, inadequate or absent accessible parking, inaccessible sinks, and other architectural barriers. He also alleged that he was involved in an automobile accident at the business on February 5, 2021, and asserted related negligence, premises-liability, and emotional-distress claims. Plaintiff alleged that Saleh owned the supermarket and later identified Abdullah Corp. as its lessee.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed the action on February 2, 2022, and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court directed service on the individual defendants and Khalib Saleh; the individual defendants later filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff moved for leave to amend and lodged a proposed first amended complaint identifying Abdullah Corp. as the lessee of CaliMex Supermarket. The court granted the motion to amend and gave Plaintiff 21 days to file an amended complaint, warning that failure to comply could result in a recommendation of dismissal.