Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07199/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07199-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARSHALL LOSKOT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUPER STAR, LLC, a California Limited

Liability Company, dba DAYS INN; SHUN

LIN CHOW; and DOES ONE to FIFTY,

inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-7199 CW

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants Super Star, LLC, a California Limited Liability

Company dba Days Inn and Shun Lin Chow move to dismiss this action

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff Marshall Loskot

opposes this motion. The matter is decided on the papers. Having

considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court denies

Defendants' motion.

BACKGROUND

According to his complaint, Plaintiff is a person with a

disability; he is severely limited in the use of his legs and uses

a wheelchair. On or about May 30, 2006, he went to the Days Inn in

San Bruno, California, to get a room. He alleges that he

Case 4:06-cv-07199-CW Document 14 Filed 06/12/07 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

encountered numerous barriers that interfered with his access to

the motel and that these barriers continue to deter him from

visiting the motel. 

On November 30, 2006, he filed his complaint against

Defendants, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities

Act of 1990 (ADA) and California civil rights statutes. Defendants

point out that Plaintiff has filed other complaints alleging ADA

violations, at least one of which is almost identical to this

complaint and concerns Plaintiff's stay on May 10 and 11, 2006, at

Heritage Inn in Concord, California. Another complaint concerns

Plaintiff's stay in February, 2006, at Airport North Travelodge in

South San Francisco, California. Attached to this complaint is a

letter he sent to Travelodge requesting that they make repairs and

stating that he travels frequently on business and would like to

stay at this motel when he is in the area during the spring and

summer. 

On April 10, 2007, Defendants filed this motion to dismiss for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff included a

declaration in support of his opposition to Defendants' motion. 

The declaration states that Plaintiff is in the business of organic

farming and that he makes regular business trips to the Bay Area. 

In particular, he travels on a regular basis to San Bruno on

business and intends to stay at the Days Inn in San Bruno when it

is made accessible. Attached to the declaration is a letter

Plaintiff sent to the Days Inn after his stay. The letter points

out barriers to access he encountered and asks that those barriers

be remedied. In addition, Plaintiff states in the letter that he

Case 4:06-cv-07199-CW Document 14 Filed 06/12/07 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

travels frequently on business and "would like to stop by again at

the Days Inn" when he is in the area. Loskot Dec., Ex. B. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue which goes to

the power of the court to hear the case. Federal subject matter

jurisdiction must exist at the time the action is commenced. 

Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization,

858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). A federal court is presumed

to lack subject matter jurisdiction until the contrary

affirmatively appears. Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes,

873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(1) when the district

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(1). An action should not be dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction without giving the plaintiff an

opportunity to amend unless it is clear that the jurisdictional

deficiency cannot be cured by amendment. May Dep’t Store v.

Graphic Process Co., 637 F.2d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 1980). 

A Rule 12(b)(1) motion may either attack the sufficiency of

the pleadings to establish federal jurisdiction, or allege an

actual lack of jurisdiction which exists despite the formal

sufficiency of the complaint. Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. Gen. Tel. &

Elecs. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979); Roberts v.

Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987). When "issues of

jurisdiction and substance are intertwined," however, a court

should not resolve disputed facts; rather, the court should assume

the truth of the allegations in the complaint "unless controverted

Case 4:06-cv-07199-CW Document 14 Filed 06/12/07 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

by undisputed facts in the record." Org. for the Advancement of

Minorities with Disabilities v. Brick Oven Restaurant, 406 F. Supp.

2d 1120, 1124-25 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Roberts, 812 F.2d at

1177). The question of jurisdiction and factual issues are

considered intertwined where, as here, the same statute provides

the basis for the subject matter jurisdiction and the plaintiff's

substantive claim for relief. Id.

DISCUSSION

Defendants contend that Plaintiff lacks standing, a necessary

element of federal court jurisdiction. See City of South Lake

Tahoe v. Cal. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 625 F.2d 231, 233

(9th Cir. 1980). A plaintiff has the burden of establishing that

he or she has standing to raise the claims asserted. Lujan v.

Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). To establish

standing, the plaintiff must establish that he or she has suffered

an injury in fact, that the alleged injury is fairly traceable to

the challenged action and that judicial relief is likely to redress

the injury. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61. An injury in fact is "an

invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and

particularized, and (b) actual and imminent, not conjectural or

hypothetical." Id. 

Further, in the context of the ADA's standing requirement for

injunctive relief, a plaintiff must allege that a public

accommodation has discriminated against him and that there is a

"real or immediate threat" that the defendant will again subject

the plaintiff to discrimination. Bird v. Lewis & Clark College,

303 F.3d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir. 2002). The Ninth Circuit explains

Case 4:06-cv-07199-CW Document 14 Filed 06/12/07 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

that this can be done by showing that the plaintiff has encountered

barriers at a place of public accommodation and that the plaintiff

intends to return to the public accommodation in the future. 

Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods, Inc., 293 F.3d 1133, 1137-38 (9th

Cir. 2002). Nonetheless, a mere profession of an intent to return

"someday" is "simply not enough" to confer standing. Lujan, 504

U.S. at 564. As noted in Lujan, "'Past exposure to illegal conduct

does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding

injunctive relief . . . if unaccompanied by any continuing, present

adverse effects.'" Id. (quoting City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461

U.S. 95, 102 (1983)).

Defendants argue that the Court may consider and weigh

evidence outside Plaintiff's complaint, including that Plaintiff

has filed nearly identical lawsuits against at least three

different motels in the Bay Area. Their reliance on Gould

Electronics, Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2000),

however, is misplaced. Contrary to Defendants' mis-citation, that

is not a Ninth Circuit case. This Court remains bound by Roberts,

which instructs that the "relatively expansive standards of a

12(b)(1) motion are not appropriate for determining jurisdiction in

a case like this, where issues of jurisdiction and substance are

intertwined." 812 F.2d at 1177. As discussed above, unless

controverted by undisputed facts in the record, the Court must

assume the truth of the allegations in the complaint.

Therefore, Defendants' reliance on D'Lil v. Best Western

Encina Lodge & Suites, 415 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (C.D. Cal. 2006), is

similarly misplaced. There, after an evidentiary hearing, and

Case 4:06-cv-07199-CW Document 14 Filed 06/12/07 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 6

after examining (1) the proximity of the hotel to the plaintiff's

residence, (2) the plaintiff's past patronage of the hotel, (3) the

definiteness of the plaintiff's plans to return, and (4) the

plaintiff's frequency of travel near the hotel in question, the

court concluded that the plaintiff did not establish that, but for

the inaccessibility, she was likely to return to the hotel. The

court held that the plaintiff did not establish standing to bring

her ADA claim. Its decision was based, in part, on its finding

that the plaintiff had filed at least six ADA actions against other

hotels, presumably declaring that she planned to return to those

hotels, and had never returned to those hotels after the cases

settled.

At the pleading stage in this case, however, the Court cannot

evaluate Plaintiff's credibility; the fact that he has brought at

least three law suits against motels in the Bay Area, allegedly

planning to return to each of them, is not sufficient to defeat his

ability to establish standing. See Molski v. Arby's Huntington

Beach, 359 F. Supp. 2d 938, 948 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (noting that the

plaintiff's filing of hundreds of ADA lawsuits was not an issue to

be evaluated at the pleading stage, but that it may impact his

credibility and the believability of his statement that he intends

to return to the restaurant he sued). And, at this stage of the

litigation, the Court need not evaluate the four factors that the

court examined in D'Lil. 

Based on the face of the complaint, the Court concludes that

Plaintiff has met his burden of establishing that the Court has

jurisdiction over his ADA claim and, therefore, has supplemental

Case 4:06-cv-07199-CW Document 14 Filed 06/12/07 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 9) is

GRANTED; however, the Court did not consider those documents in

reaching its conclusion that, based on the complaint, jurisdiction

is lacking. Plaintiff's objection to Defendants' late filed brief

is not well taken. The Court is required sua sponte to examine

jurisdictional issues such as standing regardless of whether they

are timely raised by the defendants. See B.C. v. Plumas Unified

Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir. 1999).

7

jurisdiction over his state law claims. As he notes, and

Defendants concede, his intent to return is implied in the

complaint. The credibility of his testimony will be for the trier

of fact. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion

to dismiss (Docket No. 8).1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/12/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-07199-CW Document 14 Filed 06/12/07 Page 7 of 7