A California state appeals court says a man whose wife died from an infection she contracted after being hospitalized for tripping and falling on stairs can sue a Huntington Beach restaurant under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act in California state court, even though federal courts have ruled such lawsuits shouldn't be allowed under federal law.
On July 26, a three-justice panel of the California Fourth District Appellate Court said an Orange County judge was wrong to toss as frivolous a lawsuit filed by plaintiff Robert Saurman against the company known as Peter's Landing Property Owner LLC, which owns and operates the Pelican Isle Waterfront Restaurant.
According to court documents, Saurman filed suit in 2015 against the company over his wife's death.
According to court documents, Saurman and his wife, Kathleen, were at the restaurant on Sept. 14, 2014, to celebrate Kathleen's 60th birthday. As they were walking to the table, Kathleen allegedly tripped and fell on a small stairway leading to a slightly elevated area of the dining room.
According to court documents, Kathleen allegedly broke her hip as a result of the fall, leading to surgery. She did four days after the surgery, reportedly from an infection she contracted in the hospital.
Saurman first filed suit for wrongful death.
While that suit was still pending, a judge denied his request to add more counts to the action, including for violations of California's state disability access laws.
Saurman then filed a different lawsuit, also in Orange County Superior Court, accusing the restaurant of violating two California disability access laws and the ADA.
In response to the restaurant's motion, Orange County Superior Court Judge Deborah C. Servino dismissed the lawsuit, and also imposed sanctions on Saurman for filing a frivolous lawsuit, ordering Saurman's attorney to pay the restaurant owners $98,852.
In her ruling, Servino noted that federal courts have declared that survivors of someone who died, allegedly as a result of a disability access violation, cannot bring a claim under the ADA on their deceased relative's behalf, seeking to force a business to pay and remedy the alleged disability access violation.
On appeal, however, the Fourth District justices said Servino was wrong.
"It appears that a successor in interest does not have standing in a federal court to bring an ADA claim for injunctive relief," the justices wrote. "But whether or not a plaintiff has standing to commence an ADA claims in a California state court is determined by state law rather than federal law."
And under California law, they said, the standing to bring a lawsuit can be inherited by a relative as "successor in interest."
They said in this instance, Kathleen Saurman's fall appears to be related to the physical conditions at the restaurant. And the justices noted that "the restaurant is currently in the same condition as it was at the time of Kathleen's fall."
In all, Saurman has accused the restaurant of allowing 22 separate disability access violations.
Under California disability access laws, Saurman could collect $4,000 for each violation.
The justices said they believed that Saurman has presented triable claims to the court, which they said, were passed to him under California law at his wife's death.
The appellate justices also dispensed with the restaurant's argument that Saurman can't press a claim under the ADA, because there is no chance his wife will be harmed by the alleged disability access violations in the future.
While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that "standing to bring an action" in court under Title III of the ADA must show "a 'real or immediate threat' that the plaintiff will suffer an injurt in the future," the California appellate justices said that holding only applies to federal courts.
That same Supreme Court decision, they noted, "makes clear that 'state courts need not impose the same standing or remedial requirements that govern federal-court proceedings."
The decision was authored by Justice Eileen C. Moore. Justices Thomas M. Goethals and Joanne Motoike concurred in the ruling.
Saurman is represented by attorneys Charles S. Roseman and Richard D. Prager, of the firm of Charles S. Roseman & Associates, of San Diego; and Jon R. Williams, of the firm of Williams Iagmin, of San Diego.
The restaurant owners have been represented by attorneys Robert Rucci, Arezoo Jamshidi and Kaitlyn A. Jensen, of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, of Irvine and San Diego.