Crandall

Crandall v. Starbucks Corp.

Good Law
249 F. Supp. 3d 1087·2017 WL 1246749·103 Fed. R. Serv. 12·2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52156
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 5, 2017Case No.15-cv-01828-JSCCalifornia16,614 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Corley, J.

ORDER RE CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Craig Crandall, an individual who requires a wheelchair for mobility, sues for disability discrimination in eonnection with access barriers he encountered when visiting a Starbucks cafe in San Jose, California. In his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act: of 1990 (“ADA”), the Unruh Act, and the California Health and Safety Code. (Dkt. No. 37. 1 ) Now pending before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. (Dkt; Nos. 64, 65.) Having considered the partiés’ submissions, and having had the benefit of oral argument on March 23, 2017, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART'-Plaintiff s motion and DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s motion.

BACKGROUND

I. Summary Judgment Evidence

Plaintiff became a paraplegic due to injuries from a traffic accident and, as a result,- is unable to walk and uses a manual wheelchair for mobility. (Dkt. No. 64-1 ¶ 2; Dkt. No. 64-10 ¶1.) He has lived in the San Jose area since 2000. (See Dkt. No. 68-3.) Defendant operates Starbucks-No. 5262 (the “Starbucks”), a public accommodation located…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.