December 16, 2025|Franchise Frontlines
December 16, 2025 | United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina | Order on Partial Motion to Dismiss
Executive Summary
In Jones v. Hut Carolinas LLC, 2025 WL 3644238 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 16, 2025), Judge Terrence W. Boyle granted defendants’ partial motion to dismiss and significantly narrowed an ADA Title III lawsuit brought against multiple Pizza Hut operators. The plaintiff, a wheelchair user, alleged that excessive sloping in accessible parking areas at one Fayetteville, North Carolina location violated the ADA and sought to pursue injunctive relief on behalf of a statewide class covering at least fifty restaurants. Defendants argued that plaintiff lacked standing as to restaurants she never visited and that the complaint failed to plausibly allege a common policy or design capable of classwide resolution. The court agreed, dismissing all claims related to unvisited locations and striking the class allegations at the pleading stage, while allowing the individual claim concerning the single restaurant visited to proceed. The decision reinforces the limits of Article III standing and Rule 23 commonality in multi-location ADA litigation.
Relevant Background
Plaintiff, a Georgia resident who spends several months each year in Fayetteville, North Carolina, visited a Pizza Hut located at 6781 Raeford Road. She alleged that excessive sloping in the accessible parking area created difficulty and risk of harm in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182.
Beyond the single location she visited, plaintiff alleged that defendants collectively own or operate at least fifty Pizza Hut restaurants in North Carolina and that centralized practices, maintenance policies, and franchise operational requirements systematically resulted in similar excessive sloping conditions at other restaurants. She identified several additional locations that, according to investigators, allegedly exhibited comparable slope violations.
Plaintiff sought declaratory and prospective injunctive relief compelling remediation of all access barriers in defendants’ parking areas statewide, as well as modification of policies, practices, and procedures to ensure ADA compliance.
Defendants moved to dismiss claims relating to restaurants plaintiff never visited under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Decision
The court addressed both individual standing and the viability of plaintiff’s putative class allegations.
As to individual standing, the court held that plaintiff lacked Article III standing to assert architectural-barrier removal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) for restaurants she had never visited. Plaintiff did not meaningfully contest that she had not personally encountered barriers at those locations. Because standing requires a concrete and particularized injury, the claims relating to unvisited restaurants were dismissed without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1).
The more consequential portion of the ruling addressed whether plaintiff could proceed on behalf of a class concerning other restaurants under Rule 23.
Although some courts defer such issues to the class-certification stage, the court adopted the approach permitting dismissal at the pleading stage where it is clear from the face of the complaint that Rule 23 requirements cannot be met. Citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), and Fourth Circuit authority, the court focused on the Rule 23(a) commonality requirement—whether there is a common contention capable of classwide resolution in “one stroke.”
Plaintiff alleged that defendants maintained centralized practices and franchise operational manuals that required compliance with ADA guidelines and periodic remodeling. She further alleged that those centralized practices “systematically and routinely resulted” in excessive sloping conditions.
The court found those generalized allegations insufficient. It concluded that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a common policy, design, blueprint, or construction plan causing uniform ADA violations across the various restaurants. Nor did the complaint allege that the identified locations shared a common architectural layout or defect traceable to a centralized design decision.
The court emphasized that ADA barrier-removal claims involve fact-intensive inquiries, including whether removal is “readily achievable,” which typically require location-specific analysis. The court cited authority recognizing that the ADA does not impose an affirmative inspection obligation on public accommodations to identify potential violations, and that barrier-removal determinations are inherently individualized.
Because plaintiff’s theory relied on broad allegations of centralized maintenance practices rather than a specific, uniform architectural defect capable of classwide resolution, the court held that she could not satisfy Rule 23 commonality. The class claims were dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
The case now proceeds solely as an individual Title III claim concerning the Raeford Road Pizza Hut location.
Looking Forward
This decision provides meaningful guidance for franchisors and multi-unit restaurant operators facing ADA Title III litigation.
First, the court reaffirmed that Article III standing is location-specific. A plaintiff who visits a single restaurant cannot automatically expand the litigation to encompass dozens of other locations without demonstrating a concrete injury at each.
Second, generalized allegations of “centralized policies” or franchise operations manuals are insufficient, standing alone, to establish Rule 23 commonality. To proceed on a classwide basis, a plaintiff must plausibly allege a common architectural design, blueprint, or practice that resolves liability “in one stroke.”
Third, ADA barrier-removal analysis remains highly fact-specific. Questions of slope measurements, readily achievable remediation, and property-specific conditions typically require individualized inquiry, which undermines classwide adjudication absent a truly uniform defect.
For franchisors and brand systems, the case underscores two parallel realities:
- ADA compliance remains critical, particularly with respect to accessible parking and architectural standards; and
- Courts will not automatically permit plaintiffs to transform a single-site accessibility claim into a statewide or system-wide class action based on generalized policy allegations.
While this ruling does not address the merits of the alleged slope violation at the individual location, it meaningfully limits the scope of exposure in multi-location ADA suits and reinforces procedural guardrails against overbroad class claims.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Court in this matter. The author has not conducted any independent investigation into the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, each statement related to the law and facts in this article is drawn from the Court’s opinion in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter LLP and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship or any other legal relationship. No statement herein constitutes legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or interpreted as such. This communication is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal counsel. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided without seeking appropriate legal advice specific to their situation. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
