Rose May Kalani v. Starbucks Coffee Co.
698 F. App'x 883
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Robert Kalani, a wheelchair user, sued Starbucks Company under Title III of the ADA and the California Unruh Act based on alleged inaccessibility at Starbucks Store #6931 in Campbell, CA.
- District court granted injunctive relief under the ADA and awarded statutory damages under the Unruh Act; the court also issued an attorneys’ fees and costs award in favor of Kalani.
- During the appeal Kalani died, and his widow Rose Mary Kalani was substituted as plaintiff and personal representative of his estate.
- Starbucks appealed the injunction, Unruh Act damages, and the fee award; the Ninth Circuit heard the appeal.
- The Ninth Circuit concluded Kalani’s ADA claims are moot due to his death (injunctive relief is the only private remedy under Title III), but Unruh Act statutory-damages claims survived and were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing at filing | Kalani intended to return to the geographic area and the Store, showing real and immediate threat of repeated injury | Starbucks argued Kalani’s statements about returning were implausible given other nearer stores | Kalani had standing when suit commenced; his stated intent to return sufficed |
| ADA injunctive relief after death (mootness) | Injunctive claims should survive substitution by estate | Starbucks urged claims became moot because injunctive relief cannot benefit a deceased plaintiff | ADA claims moot upon Kalani’s death; injunction vacated and dissolved |
| Unruh Act statutory damages survivability | Estate can recover statutory damages for past harm despite death | Starbucks argued damage claims tied to ADA should be extinguished | Unruh Act damages survive and award affirmed; estate may be compensated |
| Merits: accessible point-of-sale counter and interior seating | Kalani argued recurring obstructions to the 36-inch accessible counter and lack of interior-facing accessible seating violated ADA | Starbucks contended obstructions were isolated/temporary or otherwise compliant | District court’s findings on counter obstructions and interior accessible seating violations affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods Inc., 293 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.) (only injunctive relief available to private Title III plaintiffs)
- Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 815 F.3d 623 (9th Cir.) (appellate relief requires live controversy; mootness doctrine)
- City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2000) (court cannot issue advisory opinions when no effectual relief is possible)
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir.) (standing requires real and immediate threat of repeated injury)
- D’Lil v. Best W. Encina Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir.) (intent to return to geographic area supports standing)
- Kohler v. Flava Enters., Inc., 779 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir.) (standards for reviewing summary judgment in ADA claims)
- Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co., 685 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir.) (public accommodations must provide comparable experience)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S.) (extent of success guides reasonableness of fee awards)