Christopher Seldon v. Dignity Health et al

Filing 17

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying 15 Plaintiff's Motion for Administrative Relief. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHRISTOPHER SELDON, Case No. 16-cv-02454-KAW Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 DIGNITY HEALTH, et al., Defendants. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF Re: Dkt. No. 15 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Plaintiff Christopher Seldon filed the instant action against Defendants Dignity Health and 14 Dignity Health Foundation, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") at 15 Defendants' facility, St. Mary's Medical Center. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) On October 12, 2016, 16 Plaintiff filed an administrative motion asking that the Court enforce General Order 56 by 17 requiring that Defendants provide five dates and times for a full site inspection of St. Mary's 18 Medical Center. (Plf.'s Mot., Dkt. No. 15 at 2, 5.) 19 On October 17, 2016, Defendants filed their opposition. (Defs.' Opp'n, Dkt. No. 16.) First, 20 Defendants argue that Plaintiff is a member of the Kemper v. Catholic Healthcare West class 21 action, which covered Defendants' facilities including St. Mary's, and therefore his "entitlement to 22 injunctive relief is wholly addressed by the Kemper action, and there is no reason for him to 23 conduct any site inspection for purposes of settling injunctive relief." (Id. at 3 (internal quotation 24 omitted).) The Court disagrees. Kemper was filed in 2006, and the Court approved the parties' 25 class settlement agreement and consent decree on April 22, 2009. (Stallard Dec., Exh. C 26 ("Consent Decree"), Dkt. No. 16-4.) As defined by this agreement, the class included "all people 27 in the United States with disabilities . . . who have and who were, prior to the filing of the Class 28 Action Complaint through the pendency of this action, denied the full and equal enjoyment of the 1 goods, services, programs, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any of CHW's 2 Facilities, because of their respective disabilities." (Consent Decree at 2.) That same day, the 3 Kemper case was closed, although later activity has taken place in that case. (Kemper, Case No. 4 2:06-cv-295, Dkt. No. 75.) Plaintiff in the instant case, however, was not a patient at St. Mary's 5 until 2014, after Kemper was closed. Defendants do not explain why Plaintiff would be a member 6 of the Kemper class, which again is defined as persons "who have and who were, prior to the 7 filing of the Class Action Complaint through the pendency of [the Kemper] action, denied the full 8 and equal enjoyment of the good, services, programs, facilities, privileges, advantages, or 9 accommodations . . . ." (Consent Decree at 2 (emphasis added).) Thus, the Court finds that 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Kemper does not necessarily preclude Plaintiff from seeking injunctive relief in this proceeding. Second, Defendants contend that even if Plaintiff is not a member of the Kemper class, 12 Plaintiff has not provided any basis for demanding a full site inspection. (Defs.' Opp'n at 3.) The 13 Court agrees that Plaintiff has not provided an adequate reason for demanding a full site 14 inspection. In Plaintiff's e-mail exchanges with Defendants, Plaintiff argues that he is "entitled to 15 a full inspection," and that "it is not appropriate under General Order 56 to agree in advance to a 16 limited inspection without a court order." (Derby Dec., Exh. E at 2, Dkt. No. 15-6.) General 17 Order 56 does not entitle a party to a full inspection; instead, it specifically states that during the 18 joint inspection, the parties "shall jointly inspect the portions of the subject premises, and shall 19 review any programmatic or policy issues, which are claimed to violate the Americans with 20 Disabilities Act." (Gen. Ord. 56 ΒΆ 3 (emphasis added).) Absent a reason for requiring a full site 21 inspection, especially when the facility at issue is over 400,000 square feet, the Court will not 22 order that Defendants provide dates for a full site inspection. Under these circumstances, 23 requiring a full site inspection would defeat the purpose of General Order No. 56, which was to 24 "adopt[] a process for streamlining the resolution of ADA access suits so that violations of the 25 ADA can be remediated expeditiously while minimizing any applicable attorneys fees and 26 damages." Connally v. Baypart Marina Plaza LLC, No. C07-3032 BZ, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27 100542, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2007). 28 For those reasons, Plaintiff's administrative motion for relief is DENIED. This denial does 2 1 not abrogate the requirements of General Order No. 56. The parties are ordered to meet and 2 confer to agree on a date for a joint inspection of the relevant portions of the premises, and to 3 complete the inspection within 45 days, or to stipulate to an extension of the joint inspection 4 deadline. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 2, 2016 __________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 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 27 28 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?