Michael Orlando v. Los Alamitos Racing Association et al

Filing 30

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: granting 25 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Statute of Limitations. (twdb)

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 13-1090-DOC(JPRx)

Date: June 24, 2014

Title: MICHAEL ORLANDO -V- LOS ALAMITOS RACING ASSOCIATION

PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
Julie Barrera
Courtroom Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFF:
None Present

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANT:
None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS [25]
Before the Court is Defendant Los Alamitos Racing Association’s (“Los
Alamitos”) motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment on the question
of the statute of limitations (Dkt. 25). The Court finds this matter appropriate for
resolution without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. After considering
the moving papers and the record, the Court GRANTS the motion.
I.

Background

Plaintiff Michael Orlando (“Orlando”) filed suit against Los Alamitos alleging
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, the Unruh Civil
Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53, and the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ.
Code §§ 54-54.8. Orlando’s complaint pleads that he is physically disabled and requires
a wheelchair to ambulate. Compl. ¶ 1. Orlando alleges that he has been going to Los
Alamitos for over twenty years, since before the accident that caused his disability.
Compl. ¶¶ 1, 7. He alleges that various aspects of the Los Alamitos facilities, including

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 13-1090-DOC(JPRx)

Date: June 24, 2014
Page 2

the parking lot, betting windows, and clubhouse, are not wheelchair accessible. See
Compl. ¶¶ 9-16.
Defendant filed several motions for summary judgment, including the instant
motion, on May 14, 2014 (Dkt. 25). Plaintiff did not respond. The Court continued the
hearing on this motion and ordered Plaintiff to respond by June 9, 2014. See Order (Dkt.
28). Plaintiff still has not responded.
Los Alamitos moves for summary judgment on the question of the statute of
limitations. Specifically, Los Alamitos seeks an order limiting Orlando’s claims to only
those incidents that occurred within the appropriate statute of limitations, given that the
complaint does not specify the day or days on which Orlando visited the facilities. None
of Plaintiff’s discovery responses have stated the date of a specific visit. See UF 7-8.
Repeated attempts to obtain specific dates from Plaintiff’s counsel have failed. See UF 921. Plaintiff’s counsel refuses to stipulate to limit Plaintiff’s claims to violations
occurring within a limited time before the filing of the complaint. See UF 23.
II.

Legal Standard

Summary judgment is proper if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute
as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment is to be granted cautiously, with due respect for a
party’s right to have its factually grounded claims and defenses tried to a jury. Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 255 (1986). The court must view the facts and draw inferences in the manner most
favorable to the non-moving party. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655
(1992); Chevron Corp. v. Pennzoil Co., 974 F.2d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 1992). The
moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact for trial, but it need not disprove the other party’s case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at
323. When the non-moving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the
moving party can meet its burden by pointing out that the non-moving party has failed to
present any genuine issue of material fact as to an essential element of its case. See
Musick v. Burke, 913 F.2d 1390, 1394 (9th Cir. 1990).
Once the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to
set out specific material facts showing a genuine issue for trial. See Liberty Lobby, 477
U.S. at 248-49. A “material fact” is one which “might affect the outcome of the suit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 13-1090-DOC(JPRx)

Date: June 24, 2014
Page 3

under the governing law . . . .” Id. at 248. A party cannot create a genuine issue of
material fact simply by making assertions in its legal papers. S.A. Empresa de Viacao
Aerea Rio Grandense v. Walter Kidde & Co., Inc., 690 F.2d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 1982).
Rather, there must be specific, admissible evidence identifying the basis for the dispute.
Id. The court need not “comb the record” looking for other evidence; it is only required
to consider evidence set forth in the moving and opposing papers and the portions of the
record cited therein. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d
1026, 1029 (9th Cir. 2001). The Supreme Court has held that “[t]he mere existence of a
scintilla of evidence . . . will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury
could reasonably find for [the opposing party].” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252.
III.

Analysis

There is no federal statute of limitations for an ADA claim, and so “the court must
apply the statute of limitations of the most analogous state law.” Pickern v. Holiday
Quality Foods Inc., 293 F.3d 1133, 1137 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002). “Most district courts have
applied California’s one-year limit for personal injury actions to federal disability
discrimination claims brought in California.” Id. (citing Daviton v. Columbia/HCA
Healthcare Corp., 241 F.3d 1131, 1136 n.8 (9th Cir. 2001)). Similarly, federal district
courts apply the personal injury statute of limitations in Unruh Civil Rights Act claims.
Mitchell v. Sung, 816 F. Supp. 597, 601 (N.D. Cal. 1993). California Code of Civil
Procedure § 335.1 applies to personal injury claims and contains a two-year statute of
limitations. Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 335.1.
Los Alamitos argues it is important to determine the statute of limitations period
because each visit within a limitations period can yield a separate statutory recovery
under California law. See Cal. Civ. Code § 52. Los Alamitos therefore moves to limit all
claims in the complaint to any acts occurring on or before two years from the filing date
of the complaint, July 19, 2013. See Compl. (Dkt. 1). The complaint does not
specifically plead any theories requiring a pattern or ongoing violation, and asks for only
per-incident statutory damages under California law. See generally Compl.
Plaintiff has not responded, and so disputes none of the facts listed above. Where
there is no genuine dispute of material fact, the Court may find in a party’s favor as a
matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). (“The court shall grant summary judgment if
the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”). On the undisputed facts, Plaintiff has

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 13-1090-DOC(JPRx)

Date: June 24, 2014
Page 4

brought causes of action that are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. Plaintiff has
not responded to the instant motion, has submitted no evidence of a specific date that he
visited the facilities, and has submitted no evidence that the statute of limitations should
be tolled or otherwise suspended. Therefore, the undisputed facts show that Los
Alamitos is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on any claim outside the two-year
limitations period.
Although the motion is styled as a motion for summary judgment, it does not
require examining anything other than the pleadings. Therefore, it would more properly
be considered as a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings or a Rule 12(b)
motion. Either way, the Court GRANTS the motion and limits all of Mr. Orlando’s
claims to the two-year statute of limitations set out in California Code of Civil Procedure
§ 335.1.
IV.

Disposition

The motion is GRANTED. The claims in Plaintiff’s complaint are limited to
events occurring in the two years before the Plaintiff filed the complaint.
The Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended complaint consistent with this order
on or before July 11, 2014.
The Clerk shall serve a copy of this minute order on counsel for all parties in this
action.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk: jcb