Johnson v. Elk Horn Gas, Inc.
Filing
47
MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 10/5/2017 GRANTING plaintiff's 39 Motion for Summary Judgment. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
SCOTT JOHNSON,
11
12
13
No. 2:14-cv-00798-MCE-DB
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ELK HORN GAS INC.,
14
Defendant.
15
16
This lawsuit was brought by Plaintiff Scott Johnson (“Plaintiff”) under the
17
provisions of both the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.
18
(“ADA”), and California’s Unruh Civil Rights and Disabled Persons Acts (Cal. Civ. Code
19
§§ 51-53, 54-54.8)1 on grounds that Defendant Elk Horn Gas, Inc. (“Elk Horn”) failed to
20
provide a compliant accessible parking space and transaction counter at its Elkhorn
21
Shell service station located at 4261 Elkhorn Blvd in North Highlands, California.
22
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment which
23
seeks both an order that the disability access deficiencies be rectified, as well as money
24
damages in the amount of $8,000.00. Defendant Elk Horn has failed to oppose the
25
Motion. As set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.2
26
1
27
Plaintiff also alleges a state common law claim for negligence in his Fourth Cause of Action.
2
28
Having determined that oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this
matter submitted on the briefs in accordance with E.D. Local Rule 230(g).
1
1
BACKGROUND
2
3
On September 11, 2013, Plaintiff went to Defendant’s Elkhorn Shell station and
4
discovered that the “van accessible” parking stall lacked signage and was too steep and
5
uneven for him to exit his vehicle safely and independently in a wheelchair. Pl.’s
6
Statement of Undisputed Facts, No. 5, 8-10. In addition, when Plaintiff went inside the
7
station to make his purchase, he discovered that the transaction counter was too high for
8
him to use when seated in his chair. Id. at 15. According to Plaintiff, he returned to the
9
Elkhorn Shell on four additional occasions and encountered the same barriers on each
10
subsequent visit. Id. at 18.
11
In now moving for summary judgment, Plaintiff submits evidence demonstrating
12
just how the barriers he encountered were legally inadequate under the ADA and how
13
he is entitled to statutory damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which
14
provides for a statutory penalty of $4,000.00 for each ADA violation under Cal. Civ. Code
15
§ 55.56(a). Although Plaintiff visited Elkhorn Shell on a total of five different occasions
16
and claims he was subjected to access barriers on each occasion, he requests statutory
17
damages for only two visits, or $8,000.00.
18
19
STANDARD
20
21
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary judgment when “the
22
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
23
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v.
24
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). One of the principal purposes of Rule 56 is to
25
dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325.
26
Rule 56 also allows a court to grant summary judgment on part of a claim or
27
defense, known as partial summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (“A party may
28
move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense—or the part of each
2
1
claim or defense—on which summary judgment is sought.”); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v.
2
Madan, 889 F. Supp. 374, 378-79 (C.D. Cal. 1995). The standard that applies to a
3
motion for partial summary judgment is the same as that which applies to a motion for
4
summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); State of Cal. ex rel. Cal. Dep’t of Toxic
5
Substances Control v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 1998) (applying summary
6
judgment standard to motion for summary adjudication).
7
In a summary judgment motion, the moving party always bears the initial
8
responsibility of informing the court of the basis for the motion and identifying the
9
portions in the record “which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
10
material fact.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the moving party meets its initial
11
responsibility, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine
12
issue as to any material fact actually does exist. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith
13
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986); First Nat’l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S.
14
253, 288-89 (1968).
15
16
ANALYSIS
17
18
Plaintiff’s moving papers meet his initial burden in showing entitlement to
19
summary judgment against Defendant Elk Horn on grounds that its service station
20
contained the access barriers delineated above. That showing shifts the burden, under
21
the Matsushita analysis cited above, to Defendant Elk Horn to show that genuine
22
material issues of fact indeed exist. Defendant Elk Horn has failed to meet that burden,
23
and in the absence of any showing whatsoever in that regard, Plaintiff is entitled to
24
summary judgment as requested.
25
Plaintiff’s Motion was initially scheduled to be heard on May 4, 2017. Defendant
26
Elk Horn, although represented by counsel, failed to file a timely opposition to
27
Defendant’s Motion in advance of that hearing date as required by E.D. Local
28
Rules 230(c) and 260(b). By Minute Order dated April 26, 2017, the Court notified
3
1
Defendant Elk Horn of that deficiency and vacated the May 4, 2017 hearing date. ECF
2
No. 46. The Court also issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) as to why Plaintiff’s
3
Motion should not be granted, and judgment entered in Plaintiff’s favor, given that failure.
4
Defendant Elk Horn was ordered to respond to the OSC within ten days following the
5
date the Minute Order was electronically filed and was advised that failure to do so
6
would result in judgment being entered in Plaintiff’s favor without further notice. Id.
7
Plaintiff filed no response whatsoever to the Court’s Order. Given that failure, and
8
because Defendant Elk Horn has failed to raise any triable issue of fact to counter
9
Plaintiff’s prima facie showing that he is entitled to partial summary judgment, Plaintiff’s
10
Motion will be granted.3
11
12
CONCLUSION
13
14
15
16
17
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 39) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 5, 2017
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Additionally, given Defendant Elk Horn’s failure to file any opposition, or respond to the Court’s
OSC order, dismissal under 41(b) for failure to comply with the both Rule 56 and the Court’s Local Rules
in this regard, constitutes yet another ground for dismissal.
4
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?