N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B R IAN W HITAKER ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. B ODY, AR T AND SOUL TATTOOS LOS ANGELES, LLC , a

C a lifornia lim i te d lia bility c om pa ny , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 20-55228 D.C . No. 2:19-c v-08781-AB -E
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Andre B irotte , Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 10, 2020 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PAR

KER , *** C HR ISTEN, a

nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED JAN 25 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble B arrington D. Pa

rke r, Jr., Se nior Unite d State s C irc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Se c ond C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.B rian Whita ke r a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting de fe nda nt B ody , Art a nd Soul Ta

ttoo’ s m otion to dism

iss pursua nt to Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d ure 12(b)(1). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s ruling on sta nding, but de te rm i ne the c om pla int wa s subje c t to dism

issa l pursua

nt to R ule 12(b)(6) be c a

u se W hita ke r fa ile d to sta

te a c la im upon whic h re lie f c an be grante d. The pa rtie s a re fa m ilia r with the fa c ts, so
we re c ite only

those ne c e ssa

ry to re solve the a

ppe a l
. W e re vie w de novo, W

ilson v . K ay o Oil C o. , 563 F.3d 979, 980 (9th C ir. 2009) (quoting Salmon Spaw ning &Re c ov e ry Allianc e v . Gutie rre z , 545 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th C ir. 2008)), a nd c onstrue sta

nding in c ivil rights c om

pla ints broa dly , se e Traffic antev . Me tro. Life Ins. C o. , 409 U.S. 205, 209 (1972). On a fa c i a l atta c k

to the c ourt’ s subje c t m a tte r jurisdic tion, “ [a ] c c e pting the pla intiff’ s
a lle ga tions a s true and dra wing a ll re a sona

ble infe re n c e s in the pla intiff's fa vor, the
c ourt de te rm ine s whe the r the a lle ga tions a re suffic ie nt a s a

le ga l m a tte r to invoke the c ourt’ s jurisdic tion.” Le itev . C rane C o. , 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th C i r. 2014) (c ita tion om itte d). W hita ke r’ s c om pla int inc lude d c la im s for viola tions of Title

III of the Am e ric ans with Disa

b i litie s Ac t (ADA), 42 U.S.C . §§ 12181–12189, a nd the Unruh C ivil Rights Ac t, C a l. C iv. C ode §§ 51–53. Hea lle ge d tha t de fe nda nt
2“ fa ile d to providea c c e ssible sa le s c ounte rs,” and this fa ilure c a use d him “ d iffic ulty
and disc om fort” in his visit to de fe n da nt’ s e sta blishm e nt. The distric t c o urt re lie d
on C h apman v . Pie r 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc
. , 631 F.3d 939 (9th C ir. 2011) (e n ba nc ), to rule tha

t Whita ke r fa ile d to a lle ge sta

nding to pursue

his c la i m s. Spe c ific a lly , the c ourt re a s one d

tha t Whita ke r’ s c om pla int did not inc lude a lle ga tions e xpla ining how the c ounte rs pre ve nte d him from full a nd e q ua l e njoy m e n t of the fa c ility
. C hapman involve d a

pla intiff who fa ile d

to a lle ge tha

t he e nc ounte re d a

ny spe c ific ba

rrie r. Inste a d, C ha

pm an atta c he d a

n e xpe rt’ s a c c e ssibility

surve y to his
c om pla i nt a nd ge ne ra lly

a lle ge d tha t he e nc ounte re d unspe c ifie d ba rrie rs. Id. a t 954. In tha

t c o nte xt, we e xpla ine d tha t a c om pla int a dva

nc ing a n ADA c la im

m ust
a lle ge tha t the pla intiff e nc ounte re d at le a s t one ba rrie r re late d

to pla intiff’ s disa bility an d a lle ge how tha

t ba rrie r a ffe c te d

his disa bility “ so a s to de ny

him the

‘ full a nd e qua l’ a c c e ss tha

t would sa

t isfy the injury -in-fa c t re quire m e nt.” Id. In c ontra s t, Wh ita

ke r’ s c om pla int a lle ge d tha

t he use s a

whe e lc ha ir for
m obility , tha

t he visite d the de fe nda

nt’ s pre m ise s , tha

t he pe rsona lly e nc ounte re d
an ide ntifie d ba

rrie r re lat e d to his disa

bility

— ina c c e ssible sa le s c ounte rs— a nd tha t the b arrie r de te rre d him

from re turning. W

hita ke r’ s ide ntific a tion of a spe c ific ba rrie r distinguishe s his c om pla int from

the c om pla i nt a t issue in C

hapman
. Id.

3M indful of the Supre m e C ourt’ s instruc tion to broa dly c onstrue sta

nding in
c ivil rights c a se s, Traffic ante , 409 U.S. a t 209, a nd c o nstruing the

fa c ts in thelight
m ost fa vora ble to W hita ke r, we c onc lude the c om pla int a de quate l y

a lle ge d tha

t W hita ke r pe rsona l ly s uffe re d a

n injury -in-fa c t tha

t wa s c onc re te and pa

rtic u la riz e d,
and a c t ua l or im m ine nt. The proble m

pre se nte d by the va gue nature of the
c om pla i nt’ s a lle g a tions is more prope rly de sc ribe d

a s a fa ilure to m e e t

the sta nda rd
re quire d by

R ule 12(b)(6). In ke e ping with our opinion in W hitak e r v . Te sla Motor C

orp. , No. 19- 56497, — F.3d — (9th C ir. 2020), we c o nc lude tha t Whita ke r’ s c om p la int fa ile d be c a use it is prim arily

ba se d on le ga l c onc lusions, a nd la c ks the re q

uisite spe c ific ity

to sa tisfy Be ll Atlantic

C orp. v . Tw ombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), a nd Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009). 1 A c o m pla int m u s t c onta in suffic i e nt a lle ga tions of unde rly ing fa c ts to givefa ir notic e and e na ble the opposing pa

rty to de fe nd itse lf e ffe c tive ly , a nd it m ust “pla usibly sugge st a n e ntitle m e nt to re lie f, suc h tha t it is not unfa

i r to re quire the opposing pa rty to be

1 W e have disc re tion to de c ide pure ly le ga l que stions if re s olution of the i ssue is c le ar on a

ppe a l
. Se e Ate l Fin. C

orp. v . Quak

e r C oal C o. , 321 F.3d 924, 926 (9th C i r. 2003) (pe r c uriam ) (providing tha t this C ourt m a

y “ a ffirm a distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt on a

ny ground fa irly

supporte d

by the re c ord” (c ita

tion om itte d)); W hitak e r v . Tesla Motor C

orp. , No. 19-56497, —

F.3d — (9th C ir. 2020).
4subje c te d to the e xpe nse of disc ove ry and c ontinue d litiga tion.” Starr v . Bac a , 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th C ir. 2011). W h ita ke r’ s c o m pla int did not a

lle ge fa c ts ide n tify ing the spe c ific de fic ie nc ie s in the sa le s c ounte rs tha t pre ve nte d him

from fully a c c e ssing thede fe nda

nt’ s se rvic e s. Ac c ordingly , the c om pla int fa ile d to sta

te
a c la im for whic h re lie f c a

n be grante d
. 2

RE V E RSE D IN PART AND AFFIRM E D O N AL T E RNAT E G RO UNDS. Appe l la n t to be ar c osts.

2 B e c a

use W hita ke r did not a d e quat e ly

a l le ge a viola tion of theADA, he ne c e ssa

rily ha s not a d e quate ly

a l le ge d a viola

tion of the Unruh C ivil Rights Ac t. Se e M olsk i v
. M.J
. C able , Inc
. , 481 F.3d 724, 731 (9th C ir. 2007) (c iting C a l. C iv. C ode § 51(f)). 5