Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02141/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02141-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 07cv2141

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

A.J. OLIVER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. O7-CV-2141 H

(NLS)

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT SILVER

STRAND, LLC’S MOTION

TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S

AMENDED COMPLAINT

vs.

SILVER STRAND, LLC; REMARK

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

On November 8, 2007, plaintiff A.J. Oliver (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint. (Doc.

No. 1.) On January 31, 2008, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (“Am. Compl.”).

(Doc. No. 5.) On March 10, 2008, defendant Silver Strand filed a motion and an

amended motion (“Am. Mot.”) to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. (Doc. No. 7, 8.) On

March 24, 2008, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Silver Strand’s motion to dismiss.

(Doc. No. 10.) The Court exercises its discretion pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1)

to decide this matter without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

DENIES Silver Strand’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint.

Background

Plaintiff suffered a stroke approximately 13 years ago, and as a result he is

paralyzed, speech impaired, and unable to stand or walk. (Am. Compl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff

alleges that a liquor store and surrounding premises have features that hamper his

Case 3:07-cv-02141-H-NLS Document 12 Filed 04/07/08 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 07cv2141

mobility and deny him access to the store. (Id. ¶ 9-10.) These features include

incorrect tow-away signage, failure to include a phone number on tow away-signage,

no parking spaces designated as accessible to the disabled, no parking spaces designated

as “van accessible,” and a ramp encroaching into the access aisle. (Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff

claims that he was deterred from visiting the store and surrounding premises by the

existence of these features and the threat of injury some of these features pose. (Id. ¶

11.)

In his original complaint, Plaintiff named Dijla, Inc. d/b/a Circle H Liquor and

Remark Corporation as defendants. (Compl. ¶ 2.) In his amended complaint, Plaintiff

names Silver Strand and Remark Corporation as defendants. (Am. Compl. ¶ 2.) In the

second paragraph of the amended complaint, Plaintiff labels Silver Strand Plaza and

Remark Corporation as “collectively ‘Circle H Liquor.’” (Id.) Throughout the

remainder of the complaint Plaintiff refers only to “Circle H Liquor.” (Id. passim.)

Silver Strand brought a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. (Am. Mot. 2-4.)

Discussion

A. Failure to State a Claim

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits dismissal of a

claim either where the claim lacks a cognizable legal theory or where a plaintiff alleges

insufficient facts to support their legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept.,

901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all wellpleaded factual allegations as true. See Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336,

337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). However, as stated recently by the Supreme Court, to survive

a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise

a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, U.S.

 , 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). Although a complaint need not set forth “detailed

factual allegations” it must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible

Case 3:07-cv-02141-H-NLS Document 12 Filed 04/07/08 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 07cv2141

on its face.” Id. at 1964, 1974.

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) states that “[n]o

individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal

enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations

of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to),

or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Discrimination

includes “a failure to remove architectural barriers . . . in existing facilities . . . where

such removal is readily achievable.” Id. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). To prevail on a claim

under the ADA’s Title III, “the plaintiff must show that: (1) she is disabled within the

meaning of the ADA; (2) the defendant is a private entity that owns, leases, or operates

a place of public accommodation; and (3) the plaintiff was denied public

accommodations by the defendant because of her disability.” Molski v. M.J. Cable,

Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir. 2007); see 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a)-(b). 

The Court concludes that Plaintiff states sufficient facts in the amended

complaint to survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Silver Strand contends that, because

Plaintiff does not mention Silver Strand in the complaint after identifying it as a party

in paragraph two, Plaintiff fails to state facts supporting a claim for relief. (Am. Mot.

1-2.) The Court concludes that Plaintiff clearly identifies Silver Strand as a party by

defining the term “Circle H Liquor” to mean both Silver Strand and Remark

Corporation. (Am. Compl. ¶ 2.) Therefore, whenever Plaintiff uses the designation

“Circle H Liquor” throughout the rest of the amended complaint, the Court construes

this designation to mean both Silver Strand and Remark Corporation. Accordingly, the

amended complaint gives Silver Strand sufficient notice of the claims against it.

Plaintiff sets forth an ADA cause of action. He alleges that he is disabled within

the meaning of the ADA, satisfying the first requirement to state a claim under Title III

of the ADA. (Am. Compl. ¶ 8.) As to the second and third requirements, Plaintiff

alleges that Circle H Liquor (meaning both Silver Strand and Remark Corporation)

“owns, operates, or leases the Store, and consists of a person (or persons), firm, or

Case 3:07-cv-02141-H-NLS Document 12 Filed 04/07/08 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 07cv2141

corporation.” (Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff identifies “the Store” as “the building, structure,

facility, complex, property, land, development, and/or surrounding business complex

known as: Circle H Liquor.” (Id. ¶ 1.) Silver Strand contends that it does not own or

operate Circle H Liquor, but, for purposes of a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept

all facts alleged in the complaint as true. See Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare System,

LP, 516 F.3d 759, 763-64 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff then alleges that he “visited the

Store and encountered barriers . . . that interfered with . . . his ability to use and enjoy

the goods services, privileges, and accommodations offered at the facility.” (Am.

Compl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff claims that Circle H Liquor (meaning Silver Strand and Remark

Corporation) designed and constructed the store in a manner that prevented Plaintiff’s

access due to his disability and failed to make reasonable modifications to

accommodate individuals with disabilities. (Id. ¶ 21-30.)

Plaintiff’s allegations give Silver Strand sufficient notice and provide “enough

facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Bell Atlantic Corp., 127

S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). Accordingly the Court denies Silver Strand’s motion to

dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

B. Standing

“The existence of standing turns on the facts as they existed at the time the

plaintiff filed the complaint. Though the party invoking our jurisdiction bears the

burden of establishing that party’s standing, ‘[a]t the pleading stage, general factual

allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct may suffice.’” Skaff v.

Meridien North America Beverly Hills, LLC, 506 F.3d 832, 838 (9th Cir. 2007)

(citations omitted) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992)).

To have constitutional standing, first the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact;

second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct

complained of, meaning that the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action

of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not

before the court; and third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the

Case 3:07-cv-02141-H-NLS Document 12 Filed 04/07/08 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 - 07cv2141

injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.

Silver Strand contends that the injury to Plaintiff is not “fairly traceable” to Silver

Strand, because Plaintiff refers only to the conduct of “Circle H Liquor.” (Am. Mot.

4.) As with Silver Strand’s 12(b)(6) motion, the Court concludes that Plaintiff alleges

injury fairly traceable to Silver Strand’s conduct. Plaintiff defined “Circle H Liquor”

to mean Silver Strand and Remark Corporation. (Am. Compl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff alleges

that he is disabled, that Silver Strand owns, leases, or operates the public

accommodation on which the alleged barriers are located, and that Silver Strand’s

failure to remedy the barriers denied Plaintiff access to the public accommodation

because of his disability. (Id. ¶ 8-14.) Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s

amended complaint survives Silver Strand’s 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for failure to

establish standing.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Silver Strand’s motion to

dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 7, 2008

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COPIES TO:

All parties of record.

Case 3:07-cv-02141-H-NLS Document 12 Filed 04/07/08 Page 5 of 5