Love v. Kardooni

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 18, 2021
• Docket: 3:19-cv-04706
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SAMUEL LOVE, Case No. 19-cv-04706-MMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY 9 v. JUDGMENT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST 10 REZA KARDOONI, et al., AMENDED COMPLAINT 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court are two motions: (1) defendants Reza Kardooni, Cathleen 14 Kardooni, and Redline Motor Sport LLC's Motion, filed January 20, 2021, "for Summary 15 Judgment, or in the Alternative, for Partial Summary Judgment"; and (2) plaintiff Samuel 16 Love's ("Love") Motion, filed February 10, 2021, "for Leave to File First Amended 17 Complaint." The motions have been fully briefed. Having read and considered the 18 papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motions, the Court rules as follow.1 19 In his complaint, Love, a "paraplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility" (see 20 Compl. ¶ 1), alleges that, in August 2019, he visited defendants' business "Pit Stop," 21 where he encountered a "barrier" he describes as a failure to provide "accessible 22 parking" (see Compl. ¶¶ 12, 14). Based on said allegations, Love asserts a claim under 23 the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as well as a claim under the Unruh Civil 24 Rights Act, which latter claim is, as pleaded, wholly derivative of his ADA claim. 25 In support of their motion for summary judgment, defendants argue, and Love 26 does not dispute, that the ADA does not require a business to offer accessible parking 27 1 where it offers no parking. Additionally, defendants have submitted evidence that Pit 2 Stop does not offer parking of any kind on its premises (see Nekrawesh Decl. ¶ 5), which 3 evidence Love does not dispute; indeed, Love has "stipulated to the fact Defendants 4 have provided no parking, accessible or otherwise, at the Subject Property at all times 5 relevant to this litigation" (see Joint Case Management Statement, filed December 16, 6 2020, at 6:21-22). 7 Love nonetheless contends summary judgment should be denied for the reason 8 that he wishes to pursue other claims. In that regard, he seeks leave to amend to file a 9 First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), in which he proposes he be allowed to pursue two 10 new claims. 11 First, Love seeks to pursue a claim alleging he encountered another barrier during 12 his August 2019 visit to Pit Stop, which barrier he describes as a failure to provide "an 13 accessible passenger loading zone." (See proposed FAC ¶¶ 18-19.) Specifically, Love 14 asserts that, where a business does not offer parking, it must provide a passenger 15 loading zone that is accessible. (See id. ¶ 21.) For the reasons stated by defendants, 16 however, amendment to plead such a claim here would be futile (see Defs.' Opp. to Pl.'s 17 Mot. for Leave to File FAC at 7:6-17), as defendants' business is not one of the three 18 types of businesses required to have a passenger loading zone (see 2010 ADA 19 Standards § 209.3 (providing "licensed medical care and licensed long-term care facilities 20 where the period of stay exceeds twenty-four hours" must have passenger loading zone); 21 id. § 209.4 (providing "[p]arking facilities that provide valet parking services" must have 22 passenger loading zone); id. § 209.5 (providing "[m]echanical access parking garages" 23 must have passenger loading zone)).2 24 // 25 2 Where a business is either required or elects to provide a passenger loading 26 zone, the loading zone must comply with specified criteria, see id. § 209.2, such as having a "vehicular pull-up space 96 inches (2440 mm) wide minimum and 20 feet (6100 27 mm) long minimum," see id. § 503.2. Love acknowledges, however, that Pit Stop does 1 Second, Love seeks to pursue a claim that, at some point after Love's visit to Pit 2 Stop, defendants "installed" an "inaccessible" parking space. (See proposed FAC ¶¶ 15- 3 17.) As defendants point out, however, amendment to plead this additional proposed 4 claim likewise would be futile, as Love did not return to Pit Stop after his August 2019 5 visit (see proposed FAC ¶ 25) and thus did not encounter any such assertedly 6 "inaccessible" parking, see Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 954 (9th 7 Cir. 2011) (holding plaintiff lacks standing to challenge barriers he has not encountered), 8 nor can he rely on the theory that he was, as a result of his initial visit in August 2019, 9 deterred from returning and experiencing such a barrier at a later date, as he did not 10 encounter a legally cognizable barrier at his visit in August 2019, cf. Doran v. 7-Eleven, 11 Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1043-44 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding, where plaintiff encounters barrier 12 that violates ADA and "deters access to . . . a place of public accommodation," plaintiff 13 may challenge barriers he did not encounter but would have encountered but for initial 14 barrier). Moreover, any claim for injunctive relief based on the later-installed parking 15 space is moot, as Love does not dispute defendants' showing that the parking space has 16 been removed. (See Nekrawesh Decl. ¶ 6); see also Antonio v. Yi, 694 Fed. Appx. 620, 17 622 (9th Cir. 2017) (finding claim for injunctive relief based on lack of handicap- 18 accessible parking "moot" after defendant removed all parking from premises). 19 Accordingly, Love's motion for leave to amend will be denied. See Deveraturda v. 20 Globe Aviation Security Services, 454 F.3d 1043, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding district 21 court properly denies leave to amend where proposed amendment "would be futile"). 22 Lastly, Love argues the Court should deny or defer ruling on the motion for 23 summary judgment until he has had sufficient time to conduct discovery. See Fed. R. 24 Civ. P. 56(d) (providing court may defer or deny motion for summary judgment, where 25 non-movant shows need for discovery "essential to justify its opposition"). The claims as 26 to which Love seeks to take discovery, however, are the claims asserted in his proposed 27 FAC, which claims, as discussed above, are futile. Consequently, Love has not shown 1 discovery. 2 Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be granted. 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons stated above, 5 1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED, and 6 2. Love's motion for leave to amend is hereby DENIED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 || Dated: March 18, 2021 . INE M. CHESNEY 10 United States District Judge 11 12

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28