The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS THE SUPPLEMENTAL STATE CLAIMS [Docket No. 29]
This is a disability discrimination case alleging that defendants, various retail establishments, have violated federal and state law by not removing architectural barriers which prevent Plaintiff, an alleged disabled individual, from enjoying full and equal access to defendants' stores. Plaintiff brings claims arising under the ADA, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (the "Unruh Act"), the California Disabled Persons Act ("DPA"), and the Health and Safety Code. Pending before the court is defendant SWH Corporation's, doing business as Mimi's Café ("MC"), Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss the supplemental state claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Docket No. 29. Co-defendants Starbucks Corporation ("Starbucks") and Bed, Bath & Beyond join in MC's motion. See Docket Nos. 31, 48.
Plaintiff alleges that she is a paraplegic and therefore "physically disabled" within the meaning of federal and state law. Comp. ¶ 23. She also alleges that MC "is an establishment serving food and drink, open to the public, which is intended for nonresidential use and whose operation affects commerce." Id. ¶ 28. During an alleged visit to MC, Plaintiff contends she encountered physical and intangible barriers that prevented her from enjoying full and equal access to MC and deter her from returning. Id. ¶ 45. The same allegations are made with respect to Starbucks and Bed, Bath & Beyond. Id. ¶¶ 43, 47. Plaintiff does not allege that MC, Starbucks, or Bed, Bath & Beyond intended to discriminate against her on the basis of her disability. Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of damages,*fn1 injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorney's fees and costs.
MC makes two arguments as to why the court should dismiss Plaintiff's supplemental state claims. First, MC contends that Plaintiff is a "tester" and that California law does not confer standing on testers to bring discrimination actions. Second, MC argues that the state claims raise novel or complex issues of California law and therefore the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).
A party may move the court to dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). When the moving party argues that the allegations are insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction as a matter of law, which is the situation here, the court accepts the allegations as true. Whisnant v. United States, 400 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2005). "The party seeking to invoke the court's jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists." Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986).
Under both federal and California law, a plaintiff must meet the jurisdictional requirement of standing. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992); Municipal Court v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 1126, 1132 (1993) (providing that if a plaintiff lacks standing, California courts will decline to address the merits). A plaintiff has standing when, among other things, he has suffered an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized as well as actual or imminent. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560; see also Schmier v. Supreme Court, 78 Cal. App. 4th 703, 707 (2000) ("A person who invokes the judicial process lacks standing if he . . . does not have a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because [he] has neither suffered nor is about to suffer any injury of sufficient magnitude reasonably to assure that all of the relevant facts and issues will be adequately presented.") (internal quotations omitted).
In the context of this case, a "tester" is someone who, falsely posing as a disabled individual, visits a place of public accommodation for the express purpose of gathering evidence of discrimination in order to bring a lawsuit. See Blumhorst v. Jewish Family Serv. of Los Angeles, 126 Cal. App. 4th 993, 997 n.2 (2005). Testers who do not suffer personal injury lack standing to bring a discrimination claim. See id. at 1003.
Since MC argues that Plaintiff lacks standing as a matter of law because California does not confer standing on testers absent personal injury, the court accepts the allegations set forth in the complaint as true. Whisnant, 400 F.3d at 1179. Plaintiff alleges that she is disabled. Comp. ¶ 23. Plaintiff further alleges that she visited MC, encountered architectural barriers there, and is deterred from returning. Id. ¶ 45. Plaintiff makes the same allegations with respect to defendants Starbucks and Bed, Bath & Beyond. Id. ¶¶ 43, 47. The court finds that these allegations are sufficient to establish standing at this stage in the litigation. Org. for the Advancement of Minorities with Disabilities v. Brick Oven Restaurant, 406 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1126-27 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (Gonzalez, C.J., presiding) (finding allegations of injury sufficient to withstand challenge to standing at pleading stages). There is nothing in the complaint alleging that Plaintiff is a tester who did not suffer personal injury as a result of the events alleged.
MC contends Plaintiff is a "tester" because in this single action, Plaintiff has sued all of the businesses in the same shopping center and has filed numerous ADA lawsuits in the past. Other than to accuse Plaintiff of drafting a "shotgun style Complaint", MC points to no specific allegation that would support finding that Plaintiff is a tester. Mot. at 1. Furthermore, the fact that Plaintiff may have filed other lawsuits is not probative of Plaintiff's standing at this stage in the case. See Brick Oven Restaurant, 406 F. Supp. 2d at 1127, 1131 (finding ADA plaintiff had established standing at pleading stages even though plaintiff had filed 178 ADA cases in the past).
MC cites Molski v. Mandarin Touch Restaurant, 347 F. Supp. 2d 860, 862-63 (C.D. Cal. 2004), and Wilson v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 426 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1122-23 (S.D. Cal. 2006) in support of its argument that Plaintiff has suffered no actual injury and therefore her case should be dismissed for lack of standing. Molski, however, involved the defendant's motion to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant, and it therefore has no application here. Wilson, which found that the plaintiff-patron lacked standing to sue for violations of the ADA, 426 F. Supp. 2d at 1123, was decided on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. By contrast, this case is at the pleading stages and therefore the court, in deciding the standing issue, looks only to the sufficiency of the allegations. Whisnant, 400 F.3d at 1179. In sum, MC's cited authorities do not support its argument.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the supplemental state claims for lack of standing is denied. The complaint sufficiently alleges that Plaintiff has suffered personal injury. The next issue raised by MC is whether the court should decline to exercise its ...