Williams v. A&M Bros, LLC, 1:22-cv-00077

Background:

Plaintiff Gregory Williams uses a walking stick due to osteoarthritis, valley fever, and cancer and alleges two incidents where A&M Bros., dba Vibez Lounge, denied him full access because of his walking stick (one prevented entry; one removal after admission).
He sued under Title III of the ADA, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act seeking injunctive relief, damages (Unruh), and attorneys’ fees.
Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction: standing/mootness) and 12(b)(6) (arguing the ADA "direct threat" defense).
Defendant supported the jurisdictional attack with declarations claiming it had offered staff assistance and that the walking stick posed a safety risk; plaintiff denies those facts, creating a factual dispute.
The Court found the jurisdictional and substantive issues intertwined (because both rest on whether an ADA violation occurred), so factual disputes must await resolution on the merits; it therefore denied the 12(b)(1) motion.
The Court also denied the 12(b)(6) motion because Defendant relied on facts and evidence outside the complaint to assert the direct-threat defense, and courts generally may not consider such extra-pleading facts at the pleading stage. The state-law claims remain pending.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction / standing (12(b)(1))	Williams alleges continuing injury and requests injunctive relief; he has standing.	Defendant contends standing is lacking and claims the dispute is moot because it cured the alleged violation.	Denied: factual disputes about remedy and discrimination make jurisdictional and merits issues intertwined; cannot resolve jurisdiction now.
Whether the court may resolve factual jurisdictional attack	Plaintiff: factual disputes exist and should be left to the trier of fact when intertwined with merits.	Defendant: submitted declarations and argues a factual attack showing lack of jurisdiction.	Held: Defendant presented a factual attack, but because jurisdiction is intertwined with merits and material facts are disputed, dismissal is inappropriate at this stage.
Direct-threat defense (12(b)(6))	Williams pleads discrimination; complaint contains no allegations supporting a direct threat.	Defendant says the walking stick could be a weapon and posed a significant, unmitigable risk.	Denied: Defendant relied on facts outside the complaint; courts may not consider that evidence on a 12(b)(6) motion absent incorporation or judicial notice.
Supplemental jurisdiction over state claims	Williams urges federal claims survive; state claims should proceed.	Defendant argues if federal claims dismissed, court should decline supplemental jurisdiction.	Moot: because federal claims were not dismissed, supplemental-jurisdiction argument is unnecessary.

Key Cases Cited

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (federal courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction)
Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2004) (distinguishes facial and factual Rule 12(b)(1) attacks and discusses when jurisdictional and merits issues are intertwined)
Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (U.S. 1946) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction appropriate only where claim is insubstantial or frivolous)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim for relief)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014) (when jurisdiction is intertwined with merits, material factual disputes should be left to the trier of fact)
McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1988) (courts may consider evidence in resolving factual jurisdictional attacks)
Doe v. Holy, 557 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2009) (in a facial attack courts must presume truth of the complaint's factual allegations)
McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1936) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)