United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
James Lorenz United States District Judge
action alleging disabled access violations, Defendant Wisco
Restaurants, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
standing and failure to state a claim, and requesting the
Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
state law claims. The Court decides the matter on the papers
submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L. R.
7.1(d.1). For the reasons stated below, Defendant's
motion is denied.
action arises from Plaintiff's visit to Defendant's
restaurant. She alleges that she had contracted polio and it
is difficult for her to walk or stand. She uses a mobility
equipped van and a manual wheelchair to travel in public.
When she visited Defendant's restaurant, she encountered
three barriers which interfered with her access. First, at
least one disabled parking space had slopes and/or cross
slopes that were too steep to transfer between a van and a
wheelchair. Second, at least one of the van accessible
parking spaces was too small to make the transfer. Finally,
there was insufficient clear space under the lavatory to
approach with a wheelchair close enough to wash hands.
(Compl. at 3.)
filed a complaint alleging violations of (1) the Americans
with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.
(“ADA”); (2) the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal.
Civ. Code §51 et seq. (“Unruh”);
(3) the Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code §54 et
seq. (“DPA”); and California Health and
Safety Code §19955 et seq. The Court has
subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
moves to dismiss the initial complaint under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6) arguing that Plaintiff
failed to sufficiently allege standing, the Court should
exercise its discretion to decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and that Plaintiff
failed to state a claim.
contends this action should be dismissed because Plaintiff
did not sufficiently allege standing. A federal court
"may not decide a cause of action before resolving
whether the court has Article III jurisdiction." RK
Ventures, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 307 F.3d 1045, 1056
n.6. Federal jurisdiction under Article III depends on the
existence of a case or controversy. SEC v. Med. Comm. for
Human Rights, 404 U.S. 403, 407 (1972). Standing is
required to establish a case or controversy. RK
Ventures, 307 F.3d at 1056 n.6.
has the burden of pleading standing:
[T]he plaintiff has the burden of proving jurisdiction in
order to survive the motion. A plaintiff suing in a federal
court must show in his pleading, affirmatively and
distinctly, the existence of whatever is essential to federal
jurisdiction, and, if he does not do so, the court, on having
the defect called to its attention or on discovering the
same, must dismiss the case, unless the defect be corrected
Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Env't,
236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001)(internal citations and
quotation marks omitted) abrogated on other grounds by
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 82-83
III “requires federal courts to satisfy themselves that
the plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in the
outcome of the controversy as to warrant his [or
her] invocation of federal-court jurisdiction.”
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493
(2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted,
emphasis in original).
[T]he "irreducible constitutional minimum" of
standing consists of three elements. The plaintiff must have
(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable
to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is