McCarty, et al. v. Humphrey, et al.
Filing
69
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/29/15 ORDERING that Plaintiffs' 53 motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs are GRANTED 30 days from the date of this order in which to file and serve a new motion for summary judgment. The parties are relieved of the obligation to file a Joint Pretrial Conference Statement until further order of the court. The Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/5/15 and the Jury Trial set for 4/13/15 are VACATED and will be reset by subsequent order of the court. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
JAMES McCARTY, ROBERT
McCARTY,
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15
16
17
No. 2:13-cv-0431 KJM AC
v.
ORDER
RUSSELL HUMPHREY, et al.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ October 10, 2014 motion for summary
18
judgment. ECF No. 53. Defendants filed on opposition to the motion on November 7, 2014,
19
ECF No. 64, and plaintiffs filed a reply on November 14, 2014, ECF No. 65. The matter was
20
submitted without oral argument. ECF No. 68. For the reasons explained in this order, plaintiffs’
21
motion is denied without prejudice.
22
Plaintiffs James McCarty and Robert McCarty filed this action in March 2013.
23
Plaintiffs allege they encountered barriers to access at a business complex in Lodi, California,
24
identified as Lakeshore Plaza, and at the law office of defendant Humphrey Law Group, which is
25
located within Lakeshore Plaza. They claim violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
26
(ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq.; the Unruh Civil Rights, Cal. Civ. Code §51; and the Disabled
27
Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 54. The action is now proceeding on plaintiffs’ first amended
28
complaint, filed November 13, 2013. ECF No. 29.
1
1
On September 16, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second
2
amended complaint. ECF No. 52. Plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to describe new
3
barriers identified by their expert, Cris C. Vaughan (Vaughan), during an inspection of the
4
property on July 2, 2014, and to reinstate two new defendants. On October 10, 2014, plaintiffs
5
filed their motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 53. By order filed October 31, 2014, the
6
court denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend on the ground that they had failed to establish
7
good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) for their late motion to amend, filed
8
nearly a year after the November 18, 2013 deadline set by the court for amendment of pleadings
9
or addition of new parties. Order Oct. 31, 2013, at 3, ECF No. 63.
10
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment relies extensively on the findings made
11
by Vaughan following his July 2, 2014 “accessibility survey” of Lakeshore Plaza. See Pls.’ P. &
12
A. at 17-20, ECF No. 53-10; Decl. of Vaughan ¶¶ 5-6, ECF No. 53-9. As noted above, the court
13
has denied plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to add new barriers identified by Vaughan at
14
the July 2, 2014 visit. ECF No. 63. Plaintiffs may only seek relief based on the barriers alleged
15
in the operative complaint, here their first amended complaint. See Oliver v. Ralph’s Grocery
16
Company, 654 F.3d 903, 908-09 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In general, only disclosures of barriers in a
17
properly pleaded complaint can provide” fair notice of the barriers relied on to support request for
18
injunctive relief in ADA action.).
19
Moreover, the barriers for which relief is sought must have affected plaintiffs’
20
access based on their specific disabilities. See Chapman v. Pier1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d
21
939, 947 (9th Cir. 2011). In the first amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that many of the
22
alleged barriers were fixed on June 29, 2012 and/or August 12, 2012, ECF No. 29 ¶¶ 34-35, but
23
that some others remained or were discovered on a subsequent visit, ECF No. 29 ¶¶ 36-44, 46.
24
Plaintiffs’ request for relief in their summary judgment motion is predicated on Vaughan’s expert
25
report. Plaintiffs have not tied the findings of Vaughan’s expert report to those barriers identified
26
in the first amended complaint.1
27
1
28
Even if the court had permitted amendment, which it did not, these plaintiffs would appear to
lack standing to challenge several violations identified in the Vaughan report which are not tied
2
1
For these reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is denied without
2
prejudice, and the court makes no findings concerning the arguments of the parties as presented in
3
support of and in opposition to the motion. Plaintiffs are granted thirty days from the date of this
4
order to file a new motion for summary judgment. The motion must be limited to those barriers
5
identified in the first amended complaint and, as to plaintiffs’ prayer for injunctive relief, those
6
which have not been cured.
7
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
8
1. Plaintiffs’ October 10, 2014 motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 53, is
9
denied without prejudice.
10
2. Plaintiffs are granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and
11
serve a new motion for summary judgment. Said motion shall be noticed for hearing on this
12
court’s regular law and motion calendar and briefed in accordance with the provisions of Local
13
Rule 230.
14
15
16
3. The parties are relieved of the obligation to file a Joint Pretrial Conference
Statement until further order of the court.
4. The Final Pretrial Conference set for March 5, 2015 and the Jury Trial set for
17
April 13, 2015 are vacated and will be reset by subsequent order of the court.
18
DATED: January 29, 2015.
19
20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
any of plaintiffs’ identified disabilities. Vaughan’s declaration does not tie any of the alleged
violations to plaintiffs’ disabilities and some appear completely unrelated. For example, Vaughan
declares that as of July 2, 2014 the elevator does not have any raised or Braille characters on the
hoistway entrances, ECF No. 53-9 ¶ 6g., but neither plaintiff alleges he suffers any visual
impairment.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?