Opinion
No. 2:18-cv-02956-JAM-AC
01-15-2021
SCOTT JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation; and DOES 1-10, Defendants.
Rohit A. Sabnis, State Bar No. 221465 Arthur S. Gaus, State Bar No. 289560 BURNHAM BROWN A Professional Law Corporation P.O. Box 119 Oakland, California 94604-0119 --- 1901 Harrison Street, Suite 1300 Oakland, California 94612-3523 Telephone: (510) 444-6800 Facsimile: (510) 835-6666 Email: rsabnis@burnhambrown.com agaus@burnhambrown.com Attorneys for Defendant STARBUCKS CORPORATION
Rohit A. Sabnis, State Bar No. 221465
Arthur S. Gaus, State Bar No. 289560
BURNHAM BROWN
A Professional Law Corporation
P.O. Box 119
Oakland, California 94604-0119
---
1901 Harrison Street, Suite 1300
Oakland, California 94612-3523
Telephone: (510) 444-6800
Facsimile: (510) 835-6666
Email: rsabnis@burnhambrown.com
agaus@burnhambrown.com Attorneys for Defendant
STARBUCKS CORPORATION
ORDER RE: CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
DATE: November 24, 2020
TIME: 1:30 p.m.
COURTROOM: 6, 14th floor Complaint Filed: November 12, 2018
Defendant STARBUCKS CORPORATION's Motion for Summary Judgment/Partial Summary Judgment and Request to Decline Supplemental Jurisdiction and Plaintiff SCOTT JOHNSON's Motion for Summary Judgment came on for hearing before this Court on November 24, 2020 before the Honorable John A. Mendez of the above-entitled Court. Bradley Alan Smith of Potter Handy, LLP appeared for Plaintiff. Rohit A. Sabnis of Burnham Brown appeared for Starbucks. After reviewing the parties' papers filed in support and in opposition in this matter, having heard oral argument, and for good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that Starbucks Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in its entirety and that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied in its entirety for the reasons discussed below.
Plaintiff filed this matter on November 12, 2018. (ECF Document ("Doc.") 1). The Complaint includes a cause of action for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") and a cause of action for Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh") (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53). (Doc. 1). .
Plaintiff is disabled and utilizes a wheelchair. (Doc. 1 at ¶1). He patronized the Starbucks location at 6711 Madison Avenue, Fair Oaks, California between March and October of 2018. (Doc. 1 at ¶12). He alleges that, under the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, where the approach to a sales and service counter is a parallel approach, such as in this case, there must be a portion of the sales counter that is no higher than 36 inches above the floor and 36 inches in width, and must extend the same depth as the rest of the sales and service counter top. (Doc. 1 at ¶29 (citing 2010 Standards § 904.4 and 904.4.1)). Plaintiff alleges Starbucks violated the ADA because no such accessible, compliant transaction counter has been provided. (Doc. 1 at ¶30). In particular, Plaintiff claims that Starbucks "crowded the transaction counters with merchandise and displays, which narrowed the clear width of the counters to less than 36 inches during each of plaintiff's visits" and that Starbucks has "no policy in place to make sure that the transaction counters are kept clear for persons with disabilities." (Doc. 1 at ¶¶15-17).
Plaintiff also alleges that, on "a few" of his visits, Starbucks "placed a merchandise basket in front of the transaction counters that obstructed the clear floor space Plaintiff needed to reach the transaction counters." (Doc. 1 at ¶18). Plaintiff alleges that there must be clear floor space of 30 inches minimum by 48 inches minimum in front of the counter under 2010 Standards § 305.3 and that, due to the placement of the basket, Starbucks failed to provide sufficient clear floor space in violation of the ADA. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶31-32). Plaintiff claims Starbucks violated 28 C.F.R. Section 36.211(a) by failing to maintain in operable working condition these features of its facilities such that they were readily accessible and usable by persons with disabilities. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶34-35).
Issue preclusion bars successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim. Howard v. City of Coos Bay, 871 F.3d 1032, 1040-1041 (9th Cir. 2017). The Court finds Plaintiff's claim that he encountered a barrier to access due to the placement of merchandise on Starbucks transaction counter barred by issue preclusion. These same parties have litigated to judgment the precise issue now before the Court on at least two prior occasions. (See Johnson v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 19-157759, 818 Fed. Appx. 657, 2020 WL 3265063 (9th Cir. June 17, 2020) ("Blackhawk"); Johnson v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 2:18-cv-01886-WBS-EFB, 2020 WL 4042965 (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2020) ("Watt Avenue"). In the Blackhawk matter, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a memorandum of disposition, affirmed the Northern District of California's granting of summary judgment in Starbucks favor involving the identical transaction counter claim alleged by Plaintiff in this case. Similarly, in Watt Avenue, the Eastern District of California granted summary judgment in Starbucks favor again on the same transaction counter claim asserted by Plaintiff here.
In opposition to Starbucks motion in the matter before this Court, Plaintiff asserts that issue preclusion does not bar him from proceeding on his transaction counter claim because he is now making a distinct legal argument based on the usability of the counters, as opposed to their compliance with the architectural standards, that was not litigated in Blackhawk and Watt Avenue. (Doc. 26 at 3:1-12). However, as discussed beginning on page 4 of Defendant's Reply, the arguments raised by Plaintiff in opposition to Starbucks instant motion, including with regard to the usability of the counters, are identical to those he made and that were rejected in Blackhawk and Watt Avenue. (Doc. 28 at 4:1-5:26). Accordingly, issue preclusion bars Plaintiff from going forward with his cluttered transaction counter claim in this Court. In addition, the Court finds that both Blackhawk and Watt Avenue are persuasive authority on the merits of Plaintiff's transaction counter claim. The Court finds that the holdings in these cases are applicable to Plaintiff's transaction counter claim here and adopts the courts' legal analysis in both matters finding that Starbucks was entitled to summary judgment.
With regard to the alleged clear floor space barrier, the Court finds persuasive Starbucks argument made in its Reply Brief that there was no significant opposition by Plaintiff to Starbucks motion on this claim. (Doc. 28 at 7:8-25). The photographs provided by Plaintiff in support of this claim do not tend to demonstrate that inadequate clear floor space was provided. (Doc. 23-6, Exhibit 3, p. 12-13). In addition, there was no sufficient evidence or argument presented by Plaintiff raising a triable issue of material fact as to the clear floor space claim. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's ADA claim.
Finally, it is Plaintiff's stated position that his state law claim made under the Unruh Act is entirely dependent upon the success or lack thereof of the federal ADA claim. As such, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Starbucks on the Unruh Act claim as well and, therefore, grants summary judgment in Starbucks favor on Plaintiff's case in its entirety. The Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety. The Court has previously issued a Minute Order and Judgment reflecting this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 15, 2021
/s/ John A. Mendez
THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE Approved as to form: /s/_________
Bradley A. Smith for Plaintiff Scott Johnson 4843-3295-8420, v. 1