Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Douglas Sed sued 925 Western, LLC, Natural Remedies Caregivers, and Does 1-10 in the Central District of California, alleging that accessibility barriers violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law. The complaint seeks monetary relief and, under the ADA, injunctive relief. The order is an in-chambers civil minutes order issued on the court's own initiative; it does not respond to a motion, and no party appeared.
Judge Kenly Kiya Kato reviewed the complaint and concluded that, given its threadbare and boilerplate allegations, it does not appear the plaintiff has constitutional standing to seek injunctive relief under the ADA. The court explained that jurisdiction is a threshold question and that a plaintiff seeking forward-looking relief must show a substantial risk of future injury that is traceable to the defendant and redressable by an injunction, citing Murthy v. Missouri. Under Langer v. Kiser and Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports, an ADA plaintiff can meet that standard by showing current deterrence from returning because of a barrier, or earlier deterrence plus an intent to return.
The Court’s Holding
The order states the court's preliminary assessment rather than a final ruling. The court found that the plaintiff has not plausibly alleged a real and immediate threat of repeated injury. It quoted the complaint's assertions that the plaintiff has reasons to want to go back but for the access barriers, intends and plans to visit again soon, and is deterred by knowledge of continuing barriers, and said these boilerplate allegations do not suffice.
The court added that nothing in the record establishes how close the plaintiff lives to the business, how regularly the plaintiff visits the area, or why the plaintiff prefers this location over comparable ones. It also found that the plaintiff did not sufficiently show that the barriers pose a real and immediate threat given the plaintiff's particular disability. Relying on Ninth Circuit authority, including Feezor and Strojnik, the court described the alleged intent to return as not genuine and conclusory, noting that vague 'some day' intentions do not show actual or imminent injury.
The operative directive is an order to show cause. The plaintiff must appear in person on November 5, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 3 in Riverside to explain why the ADA claim should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing, and must identify the specific facts establishing Article III standing. The court warned that failure to comply will result in dismissal for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders under Rule 41(b). Nothing has yet been dismissed, and the order does not address the state-law claims.
Key Takeaways
- Generic statements that a plaintiff wants to return and is deterred by known barriers may not support standing to seek ADA injunctive relief.
- Facts such as the plaintiff's distance from the business, how often the plaintiff visits the area, and why this location is preferred over comparable ones bear on whether an intent to return is genuine.
- A plaintiff's showing must also connect the alleged barriers to the plaintiff's particular disability and to a real and immediate threat.
- The order is a show-cause directive, not a dismissal: the court has not finally ruled on standing, and the plaintiff must respond at the November 5, 2026 hearing.
- Noncompliance with the order risks dismissal under Rule 41(b), while the dismissal the court contemplates for lack of standing would be without prejudice.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished in-chambers minute order from a district court, so it carries no precedential weight and binds no other court. Its value is illustrative: it shows how one Central District judge applies Ninth Circuit standing authority to ADA complaints that rely on formulaic language about deterrence and intent to return, and it lists the kinds of facts the court found missing.
What remains open is considerable. The plaintiff may respond with specific facts at the hearing, and the court has not decided whether standing exists, whether the ADA claim will be dismissed, or what will happen to the request for monetary relief and the state-law claims if the injunctive claim falls. The outcome of the hearing is not reflected in the materials provided.