Kalani v. Starbucks Corp.
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23658
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiff Robert Kalani (wheelchair user) visited Starbucks store #6931 (Campbell, CA) on Jan 31, 2013 and alleged multiple architectural barriers (sloped parking, cracked access aisle, insufficient point-of-sale counter length/approach, high pick-up counter, restroom maneuvering issues).
- Starbucks renovated the store in Sept–Oct 2014; parties dispute whether renovations cured the barriers.
- Cross-motions for summary judgment address (1) whether post-renovation conditions comply with ADA/2010 Standards and (2) entitlement to injunctive relief and Unruh Act damages.
- Competing expert measurements and site-inspection evidence (Plaintiff’s expert Anderson; Defendant’s expert Blackseth) produce genuine factual disputes on several features.
- Court excluded portions of defendant expert’s declarations as legal conclusions, sustained most of plaintiff’s evidence, and resolved § 36.211 statutory interpretation against defendant’s broad “movable = temporary” reading.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-renovation point-of-sale counter complies with 2010 Standards (36" length, accessible approach) | Anderson: counter effectively <36" due to fixed fixtures and recurring display items; alcove created by baskets impedes parallel approach | Blackseth: counter measures 36"; movable items are temporary under §36.211 and do not create violations | Grant MSJ to Plaintiff: counter does not comply; defendant SJ denied |
| Whether movable displays/items are exempt under 28 C.F.R. §36.211(b) | §36.211(b) applies only to isolated/temporary interruptions due to maintenance/repairs, not recurring/movable sales displays | §36.211(b) covers movable items because they are not permanently affixed | Court rejects defendant’s reading: “temporary” requires maintenance/repair/transitory interruption; movable retail displays are not categorically exempt |
| Whether other specific features comply (ramp slope, exterior seating, interior tables, fire-extinguisher clear space, restroom maneuvering) | Seeks summary adjudication of multiple noncompliant features; shows measurements/photos for exterior seating and restroom; challenges ramp slope and fire-extinguisher clearance | Contends renovations remedied defects; relies on expert assertions (some stricken as legal conclusions) and §36.211 defense for movable objects | Mixed: Plaintiff wins as to exterior seating and restroom (MSJ granted); loses as to interior table configuration and fire-extinguisher clearance (MSJ denied); ramp slope disputed — both MSJs denied |
| Standing for injunctive relief and Unruh Act damages | Kalani: intends to return to store (visits area, family nearby, events), suffered embarrassment; seeks injunctive relief and $4,000 statutory Unruh damages | Starbucks: plaintiff lives far away so lacks intent to return; claims barriers no longer exist so injunction/damages inappropriate | Court finds plaintiff has standing to seek injunctive relief; awards $4,000 Unruh damages for ongoing and past ADA violations |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (materiality/genuine dispute standard at summary judgment)
- Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998 (2004) (permissible scope of expert testimony vs. legal conclusions)
- Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903 (2011) (Title III ADA conspicuously framed; altered facilities standard)
- Fortyune v. City of Lomita, 766 F.3d 1098 (2014) (application of 2010 ADA Standards to alterations)
- Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (2007) (elements of Title III discrimination claim)
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 870 F. Supp. 2d 995 (2012) (movable obstructions do not categorically avoid ADA liability)
- Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034 (2008) (injunctive-relief standing - intent to return despite distance)
- D’Lil v. Best Western Encina Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031 (2008) (standing/injunctive relief analysis under ADA)