Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02101/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02101-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

-1-

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Chris Langer,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

HYE LLC, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 17cv02101-L (BLM)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Pending in this action filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act is 

Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. Instead, approximately three months after the due date, Plaintiff field a request for leave to file a 

late opposition. (Doc. no. 36.) Because the request was not jointly made, it was subject to the meet and confer requirement for ex parte applications. See Civ. Loc. Rule 

83.3.g; Standing Order for Civil Cases at 2. Plaintiff did not show that he had met and 

conferred with Defendants. Accordingly, his request was denied without prejudice. 

(Doc. no. 37.) Plaintiff has not cured the defects in his request and has not renewed it. 

Case 3:17-cv-02101-L-BLM Document 38 Filed 10/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
-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

Defendants' motion therefore remains unopposed. For the reasons stated below, the 

motion is nevertheless denied.

The operative complaint alleges that Plaintiff, a quadruplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility, visited Defendants' business, American Tire Depot, but was not able 

to use the disabled parking space, because the access isle was blocked by a tire display. 

Plaintiff alleged that "Defendants have a policy of placing these tires in the access isle." 

(Doc. no. 24 at 3.) He further alleged that other accessibility barriers were present elsewhere on the premises.

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. (“ADA”) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code 

§ 51 et seq. He seeks statutory damages under California law, and injunctive relief under the ADA. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 

and 1367.

In their motion, Defendants point to the Joint Discovery Plan, wherein the parties 

jointly represented that they had met at the American Tire Depot for an on-site joint inspection, as ordered by the Court. (Doc. no. 27 at 2.) The business was closed that 

day, and no tires were displayed in the access isle of the disabled parking space. (Id.) 

Based on these facts, Defendants maintain that the ADA claim should be dismissed as 

moot for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because the barrier was voluntarily removed. 

Voluntary cessation of challenged conduct moots a case . . . only if it is absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be 

expected to recur. And the heavy burden of persuading the court that the 

challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to start up again lies 

with the party asserting mootness.

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 528 U.S. 216, 222 (2000) (internal quotation 

marks, brackets and citations omitted). In light of Plaintiff's allegation that it was DeCase 3:17-cv-02101-L-BLM Document 38 Filed 10/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
-3-

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

fendants' policy to display tires in the disabled access isle, and the fact that the business 

was closed at the time of the on-site inspection, Defendants have not met their "heavy 

burden" for purposes of mootness. Their motion to dismiss is therefore denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-02101-L-BLM Document 38 Filed 10/03/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3