Scott Crawford et al v. Uber Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 246

ORDER denying (229) Motion in Limine in case 3:17-cv-02664-RS; denying (189) Motion in Limine in case 3:17-cv-06124-RS. Signed by Chief Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/7/2022. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2022)

Case 3:17-cv-02664-RS Document 246 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

SCOTT CRAWFORD,

Case No. 17-cv-02664-RS

Plaintiff,
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION IN
LIMINE

12
13

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

STEPHAN NAMISNAK, et al.,

Case No. 17-cv-06124-RS

Plaintiffs,
17
v.
18
19

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

20
21
22

Defendants filed a motion in limine in advance of the January 5, 2022 pretrial conference,

23

seeking to bar “Plaintiffs from introducing any evidence that relates to or is in support of any

24

request that Defendants take steps to enable or provide WAV trips to persons other than

25

Plaintiffs.” Defendants present two key arguments: (1) Plaintiff’s requested relief to require Uber

26

to provide wheelchair accessible vehicle (“WAV”) service in New Orleans and Jackson requires

27

class certification, which Plaintiffs have not sought or achieved, and (2) Plaintiffs could receive

28

full relief in a way that is less burdensome to Defendants, and thus the injunction sought is not

Case 3:17-cv-02664-RS Document 246 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 3

1

“narrowly tailored to remedy the specific harm shown.” E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, 934

2

F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Neither argument

3

is persuasive, and for the reasons explained below, the motion in limine is denied.

4

The nature of lawsuits brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),

5

such as this one, allows plaintiffs to pursue (and if they prevail on the merits, to win) injunctions

6

that aid not just themselves as individuals, but also other people with disabilities. The ADA

7

explicitly allows injunctive relief in the form of policy changes and facility alterations, which

8

naturally may benefit people beyond the plaintiff in question in an individual case. See 42 U.S.C.

9

§ 12188(a)(2). Indeed, cases from the Ninth Circuit and this district have repeatedly issued
injunctions that will benefit more than an individual plaintiff. See, e.g., Fortyune v. American

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075, 1084 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring movie theater to “adopt a

12

policy that ensures companion seating will be made available to the individuals for whom they are

13

designed: the companions of wheelchair-bound patrons”); Tamara v. El Camino Hosp., 964 F.

14

Supp. 2d 1077, 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (requiring hospital to admit service dogs that do not pose a

15

direct threat to the health or safety of others). Plaintiffs may seek an injunction that may benefit

16

more than just themselves as individuals without seeking or achieving class certification.

17

Plaintiffs’ choice to pursue an injunction that may benefit others is their choice to make in

18

this litigation. This Court, though, will determine whether the requested relief is a modification

19

that is reasonable under the ADA, and Plaintiffs’ choice to pursue an injunction that benefits a

20

large swath of people, rather than just themselves, may make a finding of reasonableness more

21

difficult to achieve. This issue, however, concerns the merits of the case rather than what evidence

22

is admissible. Defendants’ motion in limine is therefore denied.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: January 7, 2022
ORDER DENYING MOTION IN LIMINE
CASE NO. 17-cv-02664-RS
CASE NO. 17-cv-06124-RS

27
28
2

Case 3:17-cv-02664-RS Document 246 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 3

1
2

______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
Chief United States District Judge

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER DENYING MOTION IN LIMINE
CASE NO. 17-cv-02664-RS
CASE NO. 17-cv-06124-RS

27
28
3