249 F. Supp. 3d 1087
N.D. Cal.2017Background
- Plaintiff Craig Crandall, a wheelchair user, alleged ADA, Unruh Act, and California Health & Safety Code violations at Starbucks store #5262 in San Jose after visiting on January 17, 2015 and encountering access problems.
- Two barriers Plaintiff personally experienced: narrowed path to the transaction counter due to merchandise displays (approx. <36") and a blocked path to the men’s restroom caused by tables/chairs (requiring him to ask patrons to move chairs).
- Private investigators and Plaintiff’s expert measured and photographed paths as narrow as ~20–30 inches when customers present; Defendant’s expert and facilities manager later testified the store met 36" clearances after furniture/display relocation.
- Defendant moved the central merchandise display and removed a table after suit; Starbucks relies on these changes and testimony to argue mootness/standing defeat; Plaintiff contends barriers were recurring and likely to recur absent injunction.
- Court resolved multiple evidentiary objections, excluded certain portions of Defendant’s expert declaration as sham or legal conclusion, and denied/included other evidence as stated.
- Court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff on access to the cashier counter and men’s restroom (ADA and Unruh), awarded $4,000 statutory Unruh damages; granted summary judgment for Defendant on floor-mat claim; remaining alleged barriers presented genuine factual disputes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (injury and intent to return / deterrence) | Crandall personally encountered barriers and is deterred; intends to return for nearby activities | Starbucks argued Plaintiff lacked repeated visits/intention and pointed to other closer Starbucks locations | Court found Plaintiff had injury-in-fact and intent/deterrence sufficient for standing |
| Cashier counter access (36" path and counter clearances) | Display placement and counter merchandise made path and counter reach <36", violating 2010 ADAAG | Starbucks said displays/tables were moved and current measurements meet standards; barriers temporary | Court held pre-remediation barrier existed and likely to recur; granted Plaintiff summary judgment and injunctive relief |
| Men’s restroom path (36" path obstructed by tables/chairs) | Path to restroom <36"; Plaintiff had to ask patrons to move chairs; recurring risk absent policy preventing returns | Starbucks said table was removed and current clearance meets standards; argued obstruction was temporary/customer-caused | Court found violation at time of visit and that removal was not proven permanent; granted Plaintiff summary judgment and injunctive relief |
| Other ADAAG elements (thresholds, door closers, seating, reach, plumbing, fixtures, mirror, dispenser) | Expert found multiple additional noncompliant features in FAC inspection | Starbucks’ expert and facilities manager dispute many measurements or assert remediation; some defenses argue temporary/merely movable items | Court found genuine disputes for most additional items (denied summary judgment for both sides) except floor mats (granted Defendant) |
Key Cases Cited
- Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903 (9th Cir.) (Title III ADA scope)
- Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir.) (ADA claim elements and Unruh overlap)
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir.) (standing/deterrence and barrier encounters)
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 779 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir.) (temporary vs. recurring obstructions analysis)
- Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir.) (deterrence and standing via prior visits)
- Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 643 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir.) (injunctive relief and alterations under ADA)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (U.S.) (voluntary cessation and burden to show no reasonable expectation of recurrence)
- United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Ass’n, 393 U.S. 199 (U.S.) (voluntary cessation doctrine)
- Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998 (9th Cir.) (expert testimony and legal conclusions)