Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco v. Lyft, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

23 In this ADA action, both parties move for summary judgment. For the reasons stated 24 below plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant’s motion is

DENIED.

27 STATEMENT A previous order has stated the background of this case (Dkt. No. 58). Defendant Lyft, Inc. provides on-demand ridesharing transportation services. In some regions, Lyft provides riders with an “Access” mode to indicate their need for a wheelchair-accessible vehicle (WAV). Lyft offers such services in Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, Portland, Phoenix, and San Francisco. It does not offer WAV services in Alameda or Contra Costa County (Stip. ¶ 11). Plaintiffs are disability rights organizations and disabled individuals. Plaintiffs allege that Lyft’s WAV services are more restrictive than their non-WAV services in San Francisco and nonexistent elsewhere in the Bay Area. Plaintiffs allege that in San Francisco, the wait times are longer for WAV users and WAV services do not operate 24-hours a day. Plaintiffs accordingly have not used…