Sananda Jones v. Hut Carolinas LLC; Hut American Group, LLC; and Does 1 to 25

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina grants defendants’ partial motion to dismiss claims brought under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court dismisses without prejudice the plaintiff’s individual claims concerning Pizza Hut restaurants she did not visit and dismisses the putative class claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to plausibly allege a common policy, design, or plan sufficient to satisfy Rule 23 commonality. The plaintiff’s ADA claim concerning the Raeford Road Pizza Hut she visited is allowed to proceed.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff lacked, or waived the issue of, individual standing to assert an ADA architectural-barrier-removal claim concerning restaurants she had never visited, and those claims were dismissed without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1).
2. A court may consider at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage whether a complaint makes clear that the plaintiff cannot satisfy Rule 23's requirements for class certification.
3. The putative class claims were properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because the complaint did not plausibly allege a common policy, design, or plan causing the alleged injuries or a common contention capable of classwide resolution.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff had individual standing to assert an ADA architectural-barrier-removal claim concerning Pizza Hut restaurants she had never visited.
2. Whether the putative class claims concerning unvisited restaurants should be dismissed at the pleading stage rather than deferred until class certification.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged a common policy, design, or plan capable of classwide resolution under Rule 23 and sufficient to support an actionable ADA claim.

Disposition

other