Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-07182/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-07182-0/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)

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRIAN WHITAKER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STARBUCKS CORPORATION, ET AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 19-cv-07182-YGR 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT STARBUCKS 

CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 10 

Plaintiff Brian Whitaker brings this action against defendants Starbucks Corporation 

(“Starbucks”) and Does 1-10. Whitaker alleges two causes of action: (1) violation of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. section 12101, et. seq.; and (2) 

violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code. Sections 51-53 (“Unruh Act”). 

Now pending before the Court is Starbucks’ motion to dismiss Whitaker’s complaint 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and (b)(6). (Dkt. No. 19.) Having carefully considered the pleadings 

and the papers submitted,1 and for the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court hereby 

DENIES the motion. 

The Court is guided by established precedent in the Rule 12(b) context: a complaint must 

plead “enough facts to state a claim [for] relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads 

factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Further, under Rule 8, a 

pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds 

for the court's jurisdiction . . . ; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

1

 The Court has reviewed the papers submitted by the parties in connection with Starbucks’ 

motion to dismiss. The Court has determined that the motion is appropriate for decision without 

oral argument, as permitted by Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. 

See also Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 

728-29 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing scheduled for February 18, 

2020. 

Case 4:19-cv-07182-YGR Document 14 Filed 02/11/20 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the 

alternative or different types of relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

Based on the Court’s analysis, it concludes that the motion to dismiss is without merit on 

three grounds. First, the Court finds that the allegations in the complaint, although brief, 

sufficiently meet the notice pleading requirements under the Federal Rules to state claims for relief 

under the ADA and Unruh Act. “Where the claim is one of discrimination under the ADA due to 

the presence of architectural barriers at a place of public accommodation,” a plaintiff is required to 

plead the allegedly non-compliant architectural features at the facility. Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery 

Co., 654 F.3d 902, 908 (9th Cir. 2011). See also Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 

963, 968-69 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that plaintiff is required to allege specific barriers that existed 

at the store). Here, Whitaker did, in fact, allege and identify that the barriers at issue at the 

location are the lack of accessible dining surfaces. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 11, 13.) 

Second, to the extent that Starbucks has concerns regarding the specific obstacles 

encountered at the identified Starbucks location, the Court’s local rules and orders squarely 

address such concerns. Both General Order 56 and the operative Initial Case Management 

Scheduling Order for Cases Asserting Denial of Right of Access under the ADA (Dkt. No. 5) 

provide for and require the parties to conduct an inspection of the premises. 

Finally, the Court notes that Starbucks’ reliance on unpublished disposition, while 

persuasive, is not binding on this Court. While Starbucks is permitted to cite to such authority, the 

Court cautions Starbucks on overly relying on such authority in its arguments. See Kozinski, Alex 

and Stephen Reinhardt, “Please Don’t Cite This!”, CALIFORNIA LAWYER, 81, June 2000 (“Based 

on our combined three decades of experience as Ninth Circuit judges, we can say with confidence 

that citation of memdispos is an uncommonly bad idea. We urge lawyers to drop it[.]”). 

Accordingly, Starbucks’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. Defendants shall answer the 

complaint within twenty-one (21) days of this order. A Case Management Conference shall be 

set for Monday, March 16, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1 of the Federal Courthouse located 

at 1301 Clay Street in Oakland, California. Finally, in light of the issuance of this Order, the 

motion hearing set for February 18, 2020 is VACATED. 

Case 4:19-cv-07182-YGR Document 14 Filed 02/11/20 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

This Order terminates Docket Number 10. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 11, 2020 

 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:19-cv-07182-YGR Document 14 Filed 02/11/20 Page 3 of 3