Whitaker
Whitaker v. Peet's Coffee, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BRIAN WHITAKER, Case No. 21-cv-07698-VC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
v. MOTION TO DISMISS
PEET’S COFFEE, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 12 Defendant.
The defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied. Article III standing exists where a plaintiff alleges a concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent and traceable to the defendant’s conduct. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). Defendants may raise two kinds of jurisdictional challenges: A facial attack contends that the complaint fails, on its face, to adequately allege jurisdiction, while a factual attack “contests the truth of the plaintiff’s factual allegations, usually by introducing evidence outside the pleadings.” Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014). To the extent the defendant asserts a facial attack on the complaint, the motion to dismiss is denied. The complaint alleges that Whitaker, a quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair, visited Peet’s Coffee and encountered dining areas that were not accessible to him. It also alleges that Whitaker intends to go…