Sharp v. Islands California Arizona LP
900 F. Supp. 2d 1101
S.D. Cal.2012Background
- Dennis Sharp is wheelchair-bound and cannot independently stand or walk; he relies on mobility aids.
- Islands California Arizona LP operates Islands Restaurant-La Jolla.
- On March 2, 2011 Sharp visited the Restaurant and encountered barriers alleged to violate the ADA, CBC, Unruh Act, and Disabled Persons Act.
- Sharp filed suit asserting ADA and state-law claims seeking removal of barriers and ongoing access.
- The cross-motions for summary judgment focus on whether ADA claims are moot and on the proper scope of barriers under Oliver v. Ralphs.
- The court grants in part and denies in part both motions and orders further briefing on Oliver-related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pleading standard for ADA barriers post-Oliver | Sharp argues barriers identified in ENE/expert reports should be actionable. | Islands argues only barriers pleaded in the Complaint are relevant. | Oliver does not alter general pleading standard; barriers fall between Skaff and Oliver. |
| Sharp's status as a qualified individual with a disability | Sharp contends he is a qualified individual due to disability and wheelchair use. | Defendant disputes Sharp's claimed inability to stand/walk independently. | Sharp is entitled to summary adjudication as a qualified individual. |
| Restaurant as place of public accommodation and operator/lessee | Sharp seeks recognition of the Restaurant as a public accommodation and Islands as operator/lessee. | Defendant concedes Restaurant is a public accommodation and is operator/lessee. | Sharp entitled to summary adjudication on these issues. |
| Barriers outside the Restaurant and control of defendant | Barriers outside the Restaurant are ADA/CBC violations by the owner/operate—within defendant’s control. | Defendant does not own/operate the external property where barriers exist. | Deny Sharp’s summary adjudication on these issues due to lack of control/ownership evidence. |
| Reception counter height (CBC/ADA compliance) | Reception counter measured at 36 inches violates CBC; counter height is noncompliant. | Defendant disputes the measurement or applicability; relies on conflicting testimony. | Sharp entitled to summary adjudication that the counter is too high. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skaff v. Meridien North America Beverly Hills, LLC, 506 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2007) (general pleading suffices; discovery fills in specifics; Rule 8 notice standard applied in ADA context)
- Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2011) (detailed barrier lists raise different pleading standards; later expert lists may be limited by pleading scope)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (no heightened pleading requirement absent explicit statutory/federal rule)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (notice pleading governs; bare allegations insufficient without facts)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (illustrates notice pleading standards)