Chavez v. Won
1:19-cv-00595
E.D. Cal.Dec 15, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Rory Chavez, a wheelchair user, visited Havana House Smoke Shop (Bakersfield) in Dec. 2018 and alleges inaccessible parking and an inaccessible path of travel to the store entrance.
- Property owners are Yong Kyun Won and Young Ae Won; GIJ Enterprises operated the store at the relevant time.
- Defendants moved for partial summary judgment arguing the ADA injunctive claim is moot because parking signage/striping now comply, and asked the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.
- Defendants relied on a CASp inspection report and a declaration by Christy Kim; Plaintiff objected that those materials offered legal conclusions without measurements or factual support.
- The court sustained Plaintiff’s objections to the declarant’s legal-conclusion statements, found defendants failed to present admissible evidence that the barriers were remediated, and denied the motion for partial summary judgment and the request to decline supplemental jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff's Title III ADA injunctive claim is moot | Chavez: not moot — defendants offer no admissible measurements or proof that barriers were removed | Wongs/GIJ: claim is moot because current paint, striping, and signage now comply with accessibility standards | Denied mootness; defendants failed to present admissible evidence of remediation, so ADA claim survives |
| Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim | Chavez: federal and state claims arise from same facts; court should retain supplemental jurisdiction | Wongs/GIJ: court should decline under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c) (novel/complex state issues; differing remedies) | Court retained supplemental jurisdiction: differences in remedies and asserted state-law issues do not justify declination here |
| Admissibility of CASp / expert statements about ADA compliance | Chavez: Kim and CASp report offer legal conclusions and lack measurement data — inadmissible | Wongs/GIJ: Kim/CASp suffice to show compliance | Court sustained objections to legal-conclusion portions; excluded statements lacking factual measurements/support |
Key Cases Cited
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (standards for summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movants initial burden on summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (materiality and genuine dispute standard)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (mootness: must be absolutely clear wrongful behavior cannot reasonably be expected to 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 remedies limited to injunctive relief for private plaintiffs)
- Kalani v. Starbucks Corp., 81 F. Supp. 3d 876 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (excluding expert statements that are impermissible legal conclusions about ADA compliance)
- Moore v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc., 85 F. Supp. 3d 1175 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (declining to find Unruh claim predominates over ADA claim based solely on differences in remedies)