## Facts

- A.J. Oliver, a motorized-wheelchair user, visited a Food 4 Less store in Chula Vista, California, operated by Ralphs Grocery Company at a retail center owned by Cypress Creek Co., LP.
- Oliver sued under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related California laws, alleging architectural barriers interfering with his access.
- The complaint listed 18 allegedly noncompliant features but did not clearly identify which barriers Oliver personally encountered or how each affected him.
- After suit was filed, defendants renovated the store and removed some listed barriers.
- Oliver sought to add additional barriers beyond the 18; the district court set an amendment deadline, which Oliver missed, and the court denied a late request to extend time and amend.
- During discovery, Oliver’s expert report identified additional barriers not pleaded; Oliver also submitted a declaration at summary judgment describing specific barriers he encountered and the difficulties they caused.
- Some allegations relied on noncompliance with California’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), including parking-lot signage and markings.

## Issues

1. Whether Oliver established Article III standing for ADA Title III injunctive relief by showing injury-in-fact and likelihood of future harm tied to specific barriers affecting his disability.
2. Whether the district court properly refused to consider alleged barriers first identified in an expert report rather than in the operative complaint.
3. Whether alleged violations of California’s MUTCD, without showing noncompliance with federal ADA standards, can establish an ADA Title III violation.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after resolving the ADA claim.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- The court concluded Oliver established standing for at least some claims based on the summary-judgment record, including his declaration identifying barriers he personally encountered and describing their effect on him.
- The court held the district court properly limited the case to barriers pleaded in the operative complaint and properly excluded new barriers appearing only in the expert report after Oliver missed the amendment deadline.
- The court held MUTCD noncompliance is not, by itself, an ADA violation; ADA liability must be tied to applicable federal accessibility requirements (such as ADAAG), not merely state technical standards.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the state-law claims without prejudice after disposing of the federal claim.

## Legal Principles

- A Title III ADA plaintiff must show standing by identifying specific barriers personally encountered and explaining how those barriers relate to and affect the plaintiff’s disability, with a plausible threat of future injury supporting injunctive relief.
- Federal pleading rules require that ADA discrimination claims be grounded in barriers identified in the complaint; expert reports and discovery materials cannot expand the scope of claims absent a timely amendment.
- State or local standards (including the MUTCD) are not automatically enforceable through the ADA; ADA Title III claims must be based on federal accessibility standards and statutory or regulatory requirements.
- After the federal claim is resolved before trial, a district court generally may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld summary judgment for the defendants in an ADA Title III accessibility suit, limiting the case to barriers pleaded in the complaint, rejecting MUTCD-only theories of ADA liability, finding standing supported by the record, and approving dismissal without prejudice of state claims once the federal claim failed.


Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2011)