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)
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?