FOLLOW US

San Francisco, CA - A California federal judge indicated Friday she's inclined to dismiss a proposed class action claiming Dunkin Donuts LLC violates the Americans with Disabilities Act by charging extra for beverages with nondairy milk, but said she'll likely allow the plaintiff customers to amend their complaint. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said at the start of Friday's virtual hearing that a revised complaint would need to address Dunkin's assertions it doesn't control its franchisees and should also bolster the customers' claims about their lactose intolerance. "The essential question ... which we need to resolve before we can go much further is jurisdiction," the judge said. "I will give you leave to amend and also to do some preliminary discovery that would allow you to flesh out the jurisdictional allegations." In its filed motion to dismiss, Dunkin' — the company dropped the word "Donuts" from its name and logo in 2019 — said the court didn't have jurisdiction to pull it into California federal court. Dunkin' "has not engaged in any activities that would render it subject to specific jurisdiction in California," the motion said. "Dunkin' has no role in this matter. It does not own, operate, or lease any Dunkin'-branded restaurants, the vast majority of which are franchised." Brett Coburn of Alston & Bird LLP, counsel for Dunkin', argued that an amendment wouldn't solve the fundamental issue of jurisdiction. "There's no recognition in the complaint that they are trying to sue stores that are operated by a collection of franchisees, not by one corporate defendant," Coburn said. The customers' claims that Dunkin Donuts LLC operates all of the restaurants isn't enough, plus there are no allegations that the company controls how its franchisees handle ADA matters in general or dictates how its franchisees set pricing, Coburn told the judge. Judge Illston also told the customers that she needed more information about lactose intolerance and how it constitutes a disability. Specifically, she said, she wanted to know for each plaintiff what kind of lactose intolerance they have, what effect it has on their lives, and what essential life activity is impaired. "It's got to be more than drinking lattes, I would think," the judge said. Coburn said that in addition to failing to plead that the customers are actually disabled within the meaning of the ADA, the claim fails because the ADA doesn't require businesses to sell an accessible good at the same price as one deemed non-accessible. The plaintiffs were charged the same amount for nondairy as other customers, Coburn said.