United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING MOTION
TO DECLINE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION REGARDING DOCKET NO.
11
SALLIE
KIM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This
matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the
motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Krikor Aram Ohanessian,
Jennifer Anne Monahan Ohanessian, and C&F Restaurant
(collectively referred to as “Defendants”).
Having carefully considered the parties' papers, relevant
legal authority, and the record in the case, and having had
the benefit of oral argument, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART
AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion for the reasons set
forth below.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
Brian Whitaker (“Plaintiff”) alleges that in
September 2019, he went to the restaurant China Fun Express
located at 211 Kearny Street in San Francisco, California,
which is owned by Defendants. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 2-7,
12.) Plaintiff further alleges that he suffers from a C-4
spinal cord injury, is a quadriplegic, and uses a wheelchair
for mobility. (Id., ¶ 1.) He states that on the
date of his visit, Defendants “failed to provide
accessible dining surfaces.” (Id., ¶ 14.)
Plaintiff does not allege facts to explain how the dining
surfaces were inaccessible. Plaintiff brings a claim for
injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”) and a claim for damages under the
California Unruh Act, California Civil Code Section 51,
et seq.
ANALYSIS
A.
Applicable Legal Standard on Motion to Dismiss.
A
motion to dismiss is proper under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) where the pleadings fail to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. On a motion to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court construes the allegations in
the complaint in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party and takes as true all material allegations in the
complaint. Sanders v. Kennedy, 794 F.2d 478, 481
(9th Cir. 1986). Even under the liberal pleading standard of
Rule 8(a)(2), “a plaintiff's obligation to provide
the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to
relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citing Papasan v. Allain,
478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Rather, a plaintiff must instead
allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
“The
plausibility standard is not akin to a probability
requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility
that a defendant has acted unlawfully. . . . When a complaint
pleads facts that are merely consistent with a
defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between
possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) (internal quotation marks
omitted). If the allegations are insufficient to state a
claim, a court should grant leave to amend, unless amendment
would be futile. See, e.g. Reddy v. Litton Indus.,
Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990); Cook,
Perkiss & Lieche, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv.,
Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 246-47 (9th Cir. 1990).
B.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Defendant
moves to dismiss Plaintiff's claims on the ground that
Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim
under the ADA or the Unruh Act. Namely, Plaintiff alleges the
legal conclusion that Defendants failed to provide accessible
dining surfaces but fails to allege any facts which, if true,
would demonstrate this legal conclusion. The Court agrees.
Plaintiff fails to allege where the purported barrier is
located, in what manner the surface is inaccessible, and how
Plaintiff was denied full and complete access to the
restaurant's services. Cf. Whitaker v. Reeder,
2019 WL 6331386 (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2019) (finding allegation
that defendant failed to provide accessible dining tables was
insufficient to establish standing because he did not
“allege[] what the barrier was (i.e., what was
wrong with the table) and how Plaintiff's disability was
affected by the barrier (i.e., how Plaintiff
personally suffered).”). Therefore, the Court GRANTS
Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
C.
Defendants' Alternative Motion to Decline Supplemental
Jurisdiction over Unruh Act Claim.
Alternatively,
Defendants move the Court to decline supplemental
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over
Plaintiff's state-law claim under the Unruh Act. Although
the Court is granting Defendants' motion to dismiss, the
Court will address this alternative argument to provide
guidance if Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint.
28
U.S.C. § 1367(a) provides that:
in any civil action of which the district courts have
original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have
supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so
related to claims in the action within such original
jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or
...