United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [DOC.
THOMAS J. WHELAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss. [Doc.
19.] 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, the Court DENIES
Scott Schutza alleges the following facts in the First
Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (FAC [Doc.
is a paraplegic who cannot walk and who uses a wheelchair for
mobility. (FAC [Doc. 11] ¶ 1.) In September
2018, Schutza visited Defendants' real property located
at or about 9643 Mission Gorge Rd., Santee,
California. (Id. [Doc. 11] ¶¶ 2-5.)
The property in question is a Vons grocery store, a place of
public accommodation. (See Id. [Doc. 11] ¶11.)
During Schutza's visit to Vons, he allegedly encountered
“parking stalls and access aisles marked and reserved
for persons with disabilities [that] were not level with each
other.” (Id. [Doc. 11] ¶ 13.) According
to the FAC, “[t]he parking stalls and access aisles had
cross slopes and running slopes greater than
2.1%.” (Id.) Due to these barriers,
Schutza was denied full and equal access to the facility.
(Id. [Doc. 11] ¶ 15.)
filed suit on September 21, 2018 alleging a single violation
of both the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 43 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.,
and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civil Code §
(Compl. [Doc 1].) Schutza seeks injunctive relief
for his ADA claim, actual and statutory damages for his Unruh
Act claim, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 12205 and Cal. Civ. Code § 52.
(Id. [Doc. 11] 7-8.)
now move to dismiss. (Defs.' Mot. [Doc. 19].)
Plaintiff opposes. (Pl.'s Opp'n [Doc. 20].)
For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.
Court must dismiss a cause of action for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the
legal sufficiency of the complaint. See Parks Sch. of
Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir.
1995). A complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law either
for lack of a cognizable legal theory or for insufficient
facts under a cognizable theory. Balisteri v. Pacifica
Police Dep't., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In
ruling on the motion, a court must “accept all material
allegations of fact as true and construe the complaint in a
light most favorable to the non-moving party.”
Vasquez v. L.A. Cnty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir.
must contain “a short plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The Supreme Court has interpreted this
rule to mean that “[f]actual allegations must be enough
to rise above the speculative level.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007). The
allegations in the complaint must “contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
allegations in the complaint are assumed true, but a court is
not required to accept legal conclusions couched as facts,
unwarranted deductions, or unreasonable inferences.
Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986);
Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988
(9th Cir. 2001).
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's ADA Cause of
III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against persons with