Ricardo Murillo v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, a New York Corporation

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO MURILLO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, a New
York Corporation; E. JACK DALTON,
Trustee Dalton Family Trust; MURIEL
DALTON, Trustee Dalton Family Trust;
E. CLARK MOSELEY; STEPHENE
MOSELEY,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-56744
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-05695-R-SH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 4, 2013 **
Pasadena, California
Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAR 06 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Ricardo Murillo appeals the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of his
complaint against JP Morgan Chase Bank (“Chase”), which sought relief under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12300, and California
state law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Murillo’s first amended complaint alleged that he “is a quadriplegic who cannot
walk and who uses a wheelchair for mobility,” that he “went to the Chase Bank in
March of 2011 to cash a check,” found no lowered teller windows or counters in the
branch, and thus was denied full and equal access to a place of public accommodation.
In granting Chase’s motion to dismiss, the district court found that Murillo had not
stated a claim for relief under the ADA because the complaint did not allege that he
was unable to cash the check or had a Chase account. Because it dismissed the ADA
claim, the court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Murillo’s
state law claim.
The district court erred in dismissing the ADA claim. The complaint alleged
that Murillo personally encountered the alleged ADA violation—a lack of wheelchair-
accessible teller stations—while attempting to cash a check at the Chase branch. The
complaint also connected the alleged violation to Murillo’s disability, quadriplegia.
This suffices to state a claim for relief under the ADA. See Chapman v. Pier 1

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Imports, 631 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). We therefore vacate the district
court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --