Chavez v. Won
1:19-cv-00595
E.D. Cal.Sep 1, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Rory Chavez, a Bakersfield resident who uses a wheelchair, visited Havana House Smoke Shop in Dec. 2018 and alleges inaccessible parking and an inaccessible path of travel violated Title III of the ADA and California’s Unruh Act.
- Real property is owned by Yong Kyun Won and Young Ae Won; GIJ Enterprises operated the store when Chavez visited.
- Plaintiff sought injunctive relief to remediate barriers and alleged he was deterred from returning until he is assured accessibility.
- Defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing remedial measures (paint, signage, repaving) cured the violations and thus the ADA claim is moot; they also asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh claim.
- Defendants relied on a July 9, 2020 CASp inspection and declaration by Jong Park; Plaintiff objected that Park’s statements are legal conclusions unsupported by measurements or factual data. Some photo evidence was unauthenticated.
- The Court excluded Park’s legal-conclusion statements (sustained objections), found Defendants offered no admissible measurements or factual proof remediation achieved ADA compliance, and denied summary adjudication and the request to decline supplemental jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chavez’s ADA injunctive claim is moot because barriers were remedied | Chavez: Defendants provided no admissible evidence (measurements) showing barriers were corrected; claim not moot | Defendants: CASp report/photos show parking, signage, aisle, and path-of-travel now comply; remedial action moots injunctive claim | Denied mootness; defendants failed to present admissible factual proof of remediation, so ADA claim remains live |
| Admissibility of Jong Park’s CASp report and declaration | Chavez: Park’s statements assert legal conclusions without underlying measurements or facts and are therefore inadmissible | Defendants: Park’s inspection and CASp report establish compliance with ADA/CA standards | Court sustained objections to Park’s legal-conclusion opinions; excluded statements lacking factual support (measurements/data) |
| Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim | Chavez: Unruh claim arises from same facts as ADA claim; federal pleading rules govern; retaining jurisdiction is efficient | Defendants: Unruh raises novel/state-law issues (damages calculation, SB 1186), and state remedies predominate; court should decline jurisdiction | Court retained supplemental jurisdiction: Unruh and ADA claims arise from the same nucleus of facts; no basis to decline jurisdiction here |
| Whether state-law pleading/procedural changes (SB 1186) or damages uncertainty warrant dismissal or remand | Chavez: Federal Rule 8 governs in federal court; plaintiff is not seeking stacked/daily penalties so SB 1186 issues are irrelevant | Defendants: SB 1186 and conflicting Unruh damages rulings create novel/complex state-law issues supporting decline of jurisdiction | Court rejected this basis: state pleading rules are inapplicable in federal court and the identified issues do not justify declining jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment standard and need to pierce pleadings)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (moving party’s initial burden on summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine dispute and materiality standards for summary judgment)
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (mootness—injunctive relief requires that wrongful behavior could reasonably recur)
- Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) (elements of a Title III ADA claim)
- Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods, Inc., 293 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2002) (ADA injunctive relief and limits on damages for private plaintiffs)
- Kalani v. Starbucks Corp., 811 F. Supp. 3d 876 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (excluding expert statements that are bare legal conclusions without factual measurements)
- Sharp v. Islands Cal. Ariz. LP, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (expert opinion that a facility "complies with ADA" is an improper legal conclusion without factual support)