Brooke v. Cooper House LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 10, 2021
• Docket: 5:21-cv-00507
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 THERESA BROOKE, Case No. 5:21-cv-00507-EJD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 10 v.

11 COOPER HOUSE LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 6 Defendant. 12

13 In this disability-rights action, Plaintiff Theresa Brooke filed a complaint against 14 Defendant Cooper House LLC. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Americans with 15 Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and related California state statutes. Defendant has now filed a motion 16 for a more definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). For the reasons stated 17 below, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.1 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 According to the complaint, Plaintiff is legally disabled who utilizes a wheelchair for 20 mobility. Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1. Plaintiff alleges she is a serial ADA litigant who 21 travels to California often for “purposes of leisure travel, court-related conferences and 22 requirements, and testing wheelchair accessibility of places of public accommodations.” Id. ¶ 7. 23 In November 2020, Plaintiff and her husband traveled to Santa Cruz, California for “purposes of 24 leisure and to test accessibility.” Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff alleges that during their trip, she visited an 25 O’Neill Surf Shop which is located on property owned by Defendant Cooper House LLC in Santa 26

27 1 The Court took this motion under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). 1 Cruz, California. Id. ¶¶ 2, 8. 2 When she entered the O’Neill Surf Shop, Plaintiff noticed that the checkout counter was 3 too high for her while she was in her wheelchair. Id. ¶ 9. Plaintiff also encountered other barriers 4 including aisles between circular clothing racks that were too narrow for her to maneuver between. 5 Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff alleges that when she encountered these barriers, she “was deterred” and left the 6 store. Id. ¶ 14. Additionally, Plaintiff states that her injury is continuing because “she plans on re- 7 visiting the area . . . [and] she will not return to the O’Neill Surf Shop until Defendant provides 8 notice of removal of the barriers.” Id. ¶¶ 14-15. 9 Plaintiff alleges violations under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182(a), 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) and 10 the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design (“2010 ADA Standards”), as well as the 11 California Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), California Civil Code §§ 51, 52. Id. ¶¶ 19, 29. 12 After reviewing Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendant filed the present motion for a more 13 definite statement under Rule 12(e). See Motion for More Definite Statement (“Mot.”), Dkt. No. 14 6. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion, nor did she file a statement of nonopposition 15 pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(b).2 16 II. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Under Rule 12(e), “[a] party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to 18 which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot 19 reasonably prepare a response.” In other words, if the allegations in the pleading are so bare that 20 they fail to provide the defendant with sufficient notice, the court can grant a motion for a more 21 definite statement. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Hillblom v. Cty. 22 of Fresno, 539 F. Supp. 2d 1192, 1202 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (noting that a motion for a more definite 23 statement is proper if the “defendant cannot frame a responsive pleading”). The burden on a Rule 24

25 2 The Court does not condone violations of its local rules and finds Plaintiff’s failures to comply rather wearisome. However, it does not find that the failures prejudiced either Defendant or the 26 Court because the burden on a Rule 12(e) motion is on the moving party. See McCain v. California Highway Patrol, No. 2:11-CV-01265 KJM, 2011 WL 3818758 at *8 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 27 26, 2011) report and recommendation adopted, No. CIV-S-11-1265-KJM, 2011 WL 6153368 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2011). 1 12(e) motion is on the moving party. See McCain, 2011 WL 3818758 at *8. Motions pursuant to 2 Rule 12(e), however, are generally “viewed with disfavor and are rarely granted[.]” U.S. E.E.O.C. 3 v. Alia Corp., 842 F. Supp. 2d 1243, 1250 (E.D. Cal. 2012). 4 III. DISCUSSION 5 Defendant’s primary contention is that Plaintiff has refused to disclose her residency “for 6 purposes of properly assessing her claim of standing and her right to seek relief under California’s 7 Unruh Act.” Mot. at 1. Specifically, Defendant argues that it is not in position to admit or deny 8 jurisdiction claims in the complaint or ascertain which of its affirmative defenses apply. Id. 9 A Rule 12(e) motion “must be considered in light of the liberal pleading standards set forth 10 in Rule 8(a)(2).” Comm. for Immigrant Rts. of Sonoma Cty. v. Cty. of Sonoma, 644 F. Supp. 2d 11 1177, 1191 (N.D. Cal. 2009). Rule 8, however, requires only “sufficient allegations to put 12 defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.” McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 13 (9th Cir. 1991). Thus, “the proper test in evaluating a Rule 12(e) motion is whether the complaint 14 provides the defendant with a sufficient basis to frame his responsive pleadings.” Fed. Sav. & 15 Loan Ins. Corp. v. Musacchio, 695 F. Supp. 1053, 1060 (N.D. Cal. 1988). “The rule is aimed at 16 unintelligibility rather than lack of detail and is only appropriate when the defendants cannot 17 understand the substance of the claim asserted.” Griffin v. Cedar Fair, L.P., 817 F. Supp. 2d 18 1152, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2011). Courts are instructed not to resolve “merits issues, especially fact- 19 sensitive questions, on Rule 12(e) motions.” One Indus., LLC v. Jim O’Neal Distrib., 578 F.3d 20 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2009). 21 Here, Defendant has not met its burden because the arguments raised go more so to the 22 sufficiency and merits of Plaintiffs’ allegations, and therefore, are improperly raised on a Rule 23 12(e) motion. One Indust., LLC, 578 F.3d at 1160. Instead, Plaintiff has sufficiently put 24 Defendant on notice as to the barriers she encountered while visiting the property. Plaintiff has 25 also sufficiently identified the claims against which Defendant will have to mount a defense. At 26 this juncture, nothing more is required. Plaintiff’s complaint is not so unintelligible that 27 Defendant cannot file any type of responsive pleading. Moreover, the information Defendant 1 seeks is better sought through discovery, rather than through a motion for a more definite 2 statement. See Beery v. Hitachi Home Elecs. (AM), Inc., 157 F.R.D. 477, 480 (C.D. Cal. 1993) 3 (“If the detail sought by a motion for more definite statement is obtainable through discovery, the 4 || motion should be denied.”). 5 || IV. CONCLUSION 6 For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s motion for a more definite statement is 7 || DENIED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: June 10, 2021 10 11 EDWARD J. DAVILA %L United States District Judge

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || Case No.: 5:21-cv-00507-EJD ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT