Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05548/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05548-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE DANIEL CASTILLO-ANTONIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUI LIAN TAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-05548-JD 

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 17

The plaintiff, Jose Daniel Castillo-Antonio, alleges four causes of action under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act and various California statutes, all based on allegations that the 

defendants’ restaurant, Yuet Foo Seafood in El Cerrito, California, does not provide barrier-free 

access to disabled individuals. See Complaint ¶¶ 3-4, 18-70. Defendant Kwong C. Man has 

moved to dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing 

that the case is precluded by the judgment in Albert Dytch v. Kwong C. Man, Case No. 3:12-CV00509-RS, in this district.

That case involved a suit by another plaintiff, Albert Dytch, against the same restaurant 

and alleging similar violations, which eventually ended in a settlement.1 See Dkt. No. 19, Exs. A, 

B. The problem with giving that judgment claim preclusive effect is that it involved a different 

plaintiff who is not in privity with the plaintiff in this case. See United States v. Bhatia, 545 F.3d 

757, 759 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that the doctrine of res judicata “require[s] privity between 

parties”). “Privity is a legal conclusion designating a person so identified in interest with a party 

to former litigation that he represents precisely the same right in respect to the subject matter 

 

1 Mr. Man asks the Court to take judicial notice of the complaint and stipulation of dismissal from 

that case, see Dkt. No. 19, which the Court does. Harris v. Cnty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 

(9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that courts may take judicial notice of “documents on file in federal or 

state courts”).

Case 3:13-cv-05548-JD Document 44 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

involved.” Id. Mr. Man claims that Mr. Dytch is in privity with Mr. Castillo-Antonio because 

both are “severely limited in the use of [their] legs, see Dkt. No. 17 at 6:7-8, and because Mr. 

Castillo-Antonio is a member of the putative class alleged in the Dytch case, which included 

“others similarly situated [to Mr. Dytch who] are disabled persons who require the use of a 

wheelchair and are unable to use public facilities on a ‘full and equal’ basis.” See Dkt. No. 19 Ex. 

A ¶ 10.

That does not establish privity. A nonparty may only be bound by a judgment by virtue of 

the fact that he was “adequately represented by someone with the same interests who [wa]s a 

party’ to the suit,” as Mr. Man argues, “[i]n certain limited circumstances.” See Taylor v. Sturgell, 

553 U.S. 880, 894-95 (2008). Examples of such situations include “properly conducted class 

actions” and “suits brought by trustees, guardians, and other fiduciaries.” Id. But merely being 

part of a putative class that was never certified, and therefore not having the benefit of the notice 

requirements set forth in Rule 23(c)(2) to protect the rights of absent class members, is not enough 

to create privity. See Access for Disabled, Inc. v. Fort Lauderdale Hospitality, Inc., 826 F. Supp. 

2d 1330, 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2011).

Mr. Man also argues in passing that “pursuant to the law, buildings built before 1992 do 

not have to be brought up to code” -- but the text just quoted is the full extent of his argument on 

this point. The inadequacy of that argument as a basis for dismissing the case is evident.

Consequently, the Court denies Mr. Man’s motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05548-JD Document 44 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 2