Whitaker v. Tesla Motors, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 29, 2021
• Docket: 4:21-cv-03135
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 BRIAN WHITAKER, Case No. 4:21-CV-3135-YGR

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 9 vs.

10 TESLA MOTORS, INC.,

11 Defendant. Re Dkt. No. 12

12 13 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s request for nominal damages and California 14 Unruh Act cause of action on complaint on June 7, 2021. (Dkt. No. 12.) The motion was heard by the 15 Court on September 28, 2021 by videoconference. 16 Having carefully considered the briefing and arguments submitted in this matter, and for the 17 reasons set forth in full detail on the record, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 18 IN PART. 19 As explained during the hearing, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss with respect to 20 plaintiff’s request for nominal damages. The law is clear that only injunctive relief is available as a 21 remedy for a private plaintiff under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). See 22 Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858 (2002); Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir. 23 2007) (“monetary damages are not available in private suits under Title III of the ADA); Oliver v. 24 Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 905 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that a private plaintiff can sue 25 only for injunctive relief under Title III of the ADA.).1 The Supreme Court’s recent decision in 26 1 Many other circuits have made clear that injunctive relief is the only private relief 27 available in a Title III case. See Stebbins v. Legal Aid of Arkansas, 512 Fed. Appx. 662, 663 (8th Cir. 28 2013) (“Title III of the ADA does not provide for private actions seeking damages”); Wojewski v. Rapid City Reg’l Hosp., Inc., 450 F.3d 338, 342 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding Plaintiff’s Title III claim 1 || Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 141 S. Ct. 792 (2021), which was decided under common law principle 2 || does not change the availability of remedies under Title III of the ADA. Thus, the Court GRANTS tl 3 || motion to dismiss plaintiffs request for “nominal damages and other equitable relief” under the AD 4 With respect to the California Unruh Act cause of action, and defendant’s request that the > |! Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claim, the motion is DENIED. □□ 6 Court does not find plaintiff to be engaged in forum-shopping; plaintiff is allowed to bring his Unru 7 Act claim in either state or federal court and should not be forced to choose one forum over the othe 8 Moreover, the Court finds it more efficient to hear both claims together. 9 Defendant shall file a response to plaintiff's complaint by Monday, October 18, 2021. 10 This Order terminates Docket Number 12. 11 12 3 IT Is SO ORDERED. & = ||Dated: September 29, 2021 S15 ONNE GONZAGEZ, ROGERS qa 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

17 ° Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ———___ moot because “Title III provides only injunctive relief...”); see also Houston v. Marod Supermarket: 26 Inc., 733 F.3d 1323, 1329 (11th Cir. 2013) (“injunctive relief...is the only form of relief available to 97 || plaintiffs suing under Title III of the ADA.”); Powell v. Nat’! Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 364 F.3d 79, 86 (2d Cir. 2004) (“A private individual may only obtain injunctive relief for violations of a right grant 28 || under Title II; he cannot recover damages.”’).