Gilbert v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- [11] 12 DARREN GILBERT, No. 2:21-cv-01984 WBS KJN 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 7-ELEVEN, INC. dba 7-ELEVEN #23615; JATINDER BRAR dba 716 ELEVEN #23615; JATINDER SINGH BRAR dba 7-ELEVEN #23615; I17 CHUNG HO, Trustee of the HO LIVING TRUST dated October 26, 18 1991; MIN-CHING HO, Trustee of the HO LIVING TRUST dated 19 October 26, 1991; and KATHLEEN A. HO, [20] Defendants. [22] ----oo0oo---- [23] Plaintiff Darren Gilbert brought this action against [24] defendants 7-Eleven, Inc., Jatinder Brar, and Jatinder Singh [25] Brar, all allegedly doing business as 7-Eleven #23615; I-Ching Ho [26] and Min-Ching Ho, Trustees of the Ho Living Trust; and Kathleen [27] A. Ho. Plaintiff alleges that he encountered several physical [28] 1 barriers to access when he made purchases at a 7-Eleven store 2 owned and operated by defendants, located at 348 Elkhorn 3 Boulevard in Rio Linda, California. He asserts that these 4 barriers to access violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, [5] 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”); the Unruh Civil Rights Act 6 (“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq.; and Cal. Health & 7 Safety Code § 19955 et seq. (Compl. (Docket No. 1).) Plaintiff 8 now moves for summary judgment on his ADA and Unruh Act claims. 9 (Docket No. 18.) 10 Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that 11 there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 12 movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. 13 P. 56 (a). A party may move for summary judgment either for one 14 or more claims or defenses, or for portions thereof. Id. A 15 material fact is one “that might affect the outcome of the suit 16 under the governing law,” and a genuine issue is one that could 17 permit a reasonable trier of fact to enter a verdict in the non18 moving party’s favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 19 242, 248 (1986). Any inferences drawn from the underlying facts 20 must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving 21 party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., [22] 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 23 To prevail on his ADA claim, plaintiff must show that 24 he was denied public accommodations by the defendant because of 25 his disability. Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 , 730 26 (9th Cir. 2007). The standards for determining accessibility to 27 public accommodations under the ADA are set forth by the 28 Accessibility Guidelines which “provide[] the objective contours 1 of the standard that architectural features must not impede 2 disabled individuals’ full and equal enjoyment of 3 accommodations.” Chapman v. Pier 1 Imps. (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 4 939, 945 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc); see 28 C.F.R. pt. 1191 (“2010 5 Standards”); 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, App. D (“1991 Standards”). 6 Defendants contend that the conditions plaintiff 7 allegedly encountered at the time of his visits to the 7-Eleven 8 store either were not violations of the guidelines or have since 9 been remedied. Based on the evidence presented by the parties -– 10 including reports from both parties of inspections occurring 11 before and after defendants’ remedial measures -- the court 12 concludes that there remain genuine disputes of material fact 13 concerning multiple alleged violations of the applicable 14 Accessibility Guidelines which preclude the granting of summary 15 judgment on plaintiff’s ADA claim. 16 The Unruh Act “incorporates the substantive standards 17 of the ADA and creates a private right of action as a matter of 18 state law.” Dep’t of Fair Emp’t & Hous. v. Law Sch. Admission 19 Council Inc., 896 F. Supp. 2d 849, 865 (N.D. Cal. 2012); Cal. 20 Civ. Code § 51(f). Unlike the ADA, the Unruh Act permits 21 plaintiffs aggrieved by access barriers to recover damages. See [22] Cal. Civ. Code § 52 (a); Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 46 Cal. 4th 23 661, 669 (Cal. 2009). Because plaintiff has not met his burden 24 of showing that he is entitled to summary judgment on the ADA 25 claim, he has likewise failed to meet his burden of showing his 26 entitlement to summary judgment on the Unruh Act claim. 27 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for 28 summary judgment (Docket No. 18) be, and the same hereby is, ee en I IIE III IIE EI IS IEE IEE IRIE IE OSE II IE ONS NE 1 DENIED. i . 2 Dated: May 31, 2023 Pi ble VS oh 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE