Robinson v. Lee, 3:24-cv-04228

David Robinson, a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair, sued Katherine S. Lee for alleged ADA violations at Loard’s Ice Cream in Oakland, CA, based on obstacles relating to parking and the pathway to the entrance.
The complaint identified that the disabled parking was not well maintained, lacked proper signage, and that the path of travel was obstructed by standing signs.
Robinson filed claims under the ADA and the Unruh Civil Rights Act; the court dismissed the Unruh Act claim without prejudice, leaving only the ADA claim pending.
Lee moved to dismiss the ADA claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), arguing mootness because all identified barriers were remediated after the lawsuit commenced.
Evidence revealed the alleged barriers were addressed through structural changes with city-approved plans and certified inspection confirming ADA compliance, and Plaintiff did not attempt to inspect or contest this evidence.
The court treated the dismissal motion as one for summary judgment because jurisdiction and merits were intertwined.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ADA claim is moot due to remediation of barriers	Miyaki’s expert testimony is inadequate; remediation may not be permanent; barriers may recur	All alleged barriers have been removed/upgraded and the site independently certified compliant; no evidence of likely recurrence	Defendant met burden to show barriers remedied and recurrence unlikely; claim is moot
Impact of General Order 56 on timing of the motion	General Order 56 precludes motions to dismiss before comprehensive inspection/discovery	General Order 56 does not stay Rule 12(b) motions nor prevent voluntary or court-approved site visits	General Order 56 does not bar early motion or voluntary inspections; Plaintiff could have reinspected
Whether there is a risk of violation recurring despite repairs	Paint and maintenance fade over time; no evidence of ongoing compliance policies	Structural modifications have been made; parking and access now compliant	Structural remediation makes recurrence unlikely absent history of violations
Need for evidence of future compliance policies	No showing Defendant will maintain ADA compliance over time	No evidence of history or intent to violate ADA in the future	No need for ongoing policy evidence absent pattern of past or future violations

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (Article III standing and limits of federal jurisdiction)
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (plaintiff bears burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction)
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (mootness requires showing future violations are not reasonably likely to occur)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (case is moot if it becomes absolutely clear wrongful behavior will not recur)