Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co.
654 F.3d 903
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Oliver, a wheelchair user, sued Ralphs and Cypress Creek alleging ADA violations at a Food 4 Less in Chula Vista and related California statutes.
- District court granted summary judgment to defendants on the ADA claim and dismissed state-law claims without prejudice.
- Ralphs began store renovations, removing several barriers identified by Oliver during the litigation.
- The June 13, 2008 scheduling order set a deadline to amend pleadings; Oliver failed to file an amended complaint by that date.
- Oliver later sought to amend after the deadline (June 30, 2008); the court denied for lack of good cause under Rule 16(b).
- An expert report filed four months later added about 20 barriers not listed in the complaint; the district court excluded these from consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue for ADA barriers | Oliver had injury in fact from barriers that impaired his disability. | Oliver's complaint lacked specific barrier-by-barrier injury allegations; Chapman controls. | Oliver had standing to sue for alleged barriers; defective jurisdictional pleadings were cured. |
| Rule 8 notice for barriers identified in expert report | Expert disclosures can supplement complaint to identify barriers. | Fair notice requires barriers be alleged in the complaint itself, not only in discovery materials. | The district court did not err; barriers listed only in the expert report were not properly before the court. |
| California MUTCD vs. ADA standards | California MUTCD noncompliance equivalently violates the ADA because California standards are incorporated. | California MUTCD noncompliance is not per se a violation of the ADA; MUTCD is not incorporated as ADA standard. | Aesthetics: California MUTCD violations are not per se ADA violations; summary judgment affirmed on those claims. |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | State-law claims should be retained for efficiency given relatedness to ADA issues. | With ADA claim resolved, discretionary factors do not favor retaining state claims. | The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing state-law claims without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (standing depends on injury-in-fact from barriers; defect cured by record evidence)
- Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2006) (Rule 8 fair notice requires specific barriers pleaded)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (constitutional standing elements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Hubbard v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (S.D. Cal. 2006) (voluntary removal of barriers can moot ADA claim)
- United States v. AMC Entm't, Inc., 549 F.3d 760 (9th Cir. 2008) (ADAAG interpretation and related standards)
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc discussion on ADA accessibility standards)