Langer v. Abrahim et al

Filing 5

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to invoke the Court's jurisdiction. Within 21 calendar days from the date this order is issued, plaintiff may file an amended complaint. If he does not amend within the time permitted, this action will be dismissed without leave to amend, both for failure to invoke the Court's jurisdiction, and for failure to obey the Court's orders. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 12/11/14.(kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRIS LANGER,

CASE NO. 14cv2902-LAB (DHB)

12
13
14

Plaintiff(s),

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.
AIMEE H. ABRAHIM, et al.,
Defendant(s).

15
16

Plaintiff Chris Langer filed his complaint on December 9, 2014, bringing claims under

17

the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and supplemental state-law claims. The Court is

18

obligated to confirm its own jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary, and to dismiss the

19

complaint if jurisdiction is lacking. See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939,

20

954 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc). The complaint must plead facts, not merely conclusions, to

21

invoke the Court's jurisdiction. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014)

22

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); and

23

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)). Here, it appears Langer has failed to allege facts

24

showing he has standing to bring his ADA claim. Furthermore, because the only remedy

25

available to Langer under the ADA is injunctive relief, see Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856,

26

858 (9th Cir. 2002), if injunctive relief is unavailable or would be ineffective, the ADA claim

27

is moot. If the Court lacks jurisdiction over his federal claim, it cannot exercise jurisdiction

28

over supplemental state claims.
-1-

14cv2902

1

The complaint adequately alleges that Langer is disabled and that he would like to

2

patronize the restaurant whose parking lot he says is defective. The complaint does not,

3

however, allege how the condition of the parking lot harmed him when he visited the

4

restaurant, or how it is deterring him from returning. Instead, it relies on conclusions.

5

Essentially, its theory is that because he is disabled he merely needs to identify an ADA

6

violation on the premises that pertains to his disability. But this is not enough to show

7

standing.

8

The complaint alleges that Langer uses a wheelchair, and drives a special van that

9

deploys a ramp for the wheelchair out of the passenger side. It then alleges while “there is

10

a parking space ostensibly for persons with disabilities,” the lot has “no accessible parking

11

spaces reserved for persons with disabilities.” (Complaint, ¶ 10.) In other words, he agrees

12

a parking space is reserved for persons with disabilities, but alleges it has no designated

13

access aisle. The complaint also alleges there was a parking place reserved for disabled

14

patrons that did have an access aisle, but the markings on the pavement have faded. (Id.

15

at 11)

16

What is missing here is an allegation of how the condition of the parking lot prevents

17

him from parking, navigating the parking lot, or accessing the business. For example, Langer

18

hasn't alleged facts showing why faded paint prevented him from parking in the spot he

19

described, or why it deters him from returning in the future. A parking lot may technically be

20

ADA-noncompliant in ways that might pose difficulties for others, and yet be still fully usable

21

by Langer. By way of example, if there is a space that serves the function of an access aisle

22

in all respects, the fact that it was not specifically designated as such would make no real

23

difference. If that were true, Langer would have no standing to sue for merely technical

24

violations that do not affect him, or for which the Court can grant no meaningful relief. The

25

complaint should allege facts showing this is not the case.

26

The insufficiency of the allegations makes it impossible to make the determination

27

that it is likely and not merely speculative that Langer would benefit from injunctive relief; this

28

is relevant both to the redressability prong of the standing analysis, see Lujan v. Defenders
-2-

14cv2902

1

of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992), and the question of whether the Court can grant

2

meaningful injunctive relief. See Center for Biological Diversity v. Lohn, 511 F.3d 960, 964

3

(9th Cir. 2007) (where the only relief sought would serve no meaningful purpose, claims were

4

moot).

5

While the Court is not at this stage examining the sufficiency of the pleadings, there

6

are not even any factual allegations to establish that Defendants' business is covered by the

7

ADA, and that reserved handicap-accessible handicapped spaces are required. See Yates

8

v. Bacco, 2014 WL 1089101, at *4 and n.5 (N.Dl. Cal., Mar. 17, 2014) (discussing different

9

standards applicable to premises depending on when they were constructed).

10

Ordinarily the Court would direct a plaintiff to either amend or show cause why the

11

complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice. But both Langer and his counsel have

12

been confronted with similar pleading deficiencies several times before, and are familiar with

13

the required standard. See, e.g., Langer v. Shamoun, 14cv1822-LAB (BLM), Docket no. 7

14

(Order to Show Cause re: Jurisdiction); and Langer v. Wisham, 14cv1857-LAB (KSC),

15

Docket no. 5 (Order to Show Cause re: Jurisdiction).

16

This action is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to invoke the

17

Court’s jurisdiction. Within 21 calendar days from the date this order is issued, Langer

18

may file an amended complaint pleading facts that remedy the defects this order has

19

identified. If he does not amend within the time permitted, this action will be dismissed

20

without leave to amend, both for failure to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction, and for failure to

21

obey the Court’s orders.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 11, 2014.

24
25

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

26
27
28
-3-

14cv2902