Ramos v. Metro by T-Mobile
2:24-cv-03062
E.D. Cal.May 15, 2025Background
- Oscar Ramos, a wheelchair user, sued Metro by T-Mobile, alleging ADA and related state law violations at a Fairfield, CA store he visited on three occasions in 2024.
- The primary alleged barriers were an improperly located/marked and inadequately sized accessible parking space and a non-compliant sales counter height/width.
- Plaintiff sought statutory damages and injunctive relief under the ADA and multiple California statutes.
- Techno CA LLC, claiming current operation of the store (but only after October 2024), moved to intervene, seeking dismissal of the complaint against current defendants and sanctions against Plaintiff.
- T-Mobile USA, Inc. denied operating the store during the relevant period but did not move for dismissal; key disputed fact is who operated the store during Plaintiff's visits.
- The parties have not yet engaged in full discovery and the case was at an early stage when the motion was decided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention by Techno CA LLC | No opposition to intervention | Entitled to intervene as current operator with protectable interest | Intervention granted |
| Subject Matter Jurisdiction (ADA Public Accommodation) | ADA claim provides jurisdiction since alleged barriers are actionable | Parking lot/service counter not qualifying accommodations; claim is moot | Federal jurisdiction proper; claim not moot |
| Dismissal of T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Metro by T-Mobile | Sufficiently pled that these entities operated the store during visits | Entities did not operate store during alleged events; should be dismissed | Premature to dismiss parties; discovery needed |
| Sanctions Against Plaintiff | Claims brought based on good faith reliance on public records | Plaintiff sued wrong parties and persisted after clarification | No bad faith; sanctions denied |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000) (distinguishes facial/factual jurisdictional attacks)
- Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2004) (explains facial vs. factual Rule 12(b)(1) motions)
- Thompson v. McCombe, 99 F.3d 352 (9th Cir. 1996) (burden on party invoking federal jurisdiction)
- Idaho Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392 (9th Cir. 1995) (factors for intervention under Rule 24(a))
- Bollard v. Cal. Province of the Soc'y of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 1999) (federal question jurisdiction standard)