Adams v. Spangles, Inc.

Filing 51

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 48 Motion for Reconsideration re 45 Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 6/13/2019. (mam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

GUADALUPE ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs.

No. 18-1034-JTM

COWLEY CINEMA 8, LLC,
Defendant.

GUADALUPE ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs.

No. 18-1046-JTM

SPANGLES, INC.,
Defendant.

GUADALUPE ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs.

No. 18-1047-JTM

REGAL HOTELS, LLC,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on the motions of the plaintiff in the three
respective ADA accomodation cases seeking reconsidertion of the court’s award of
attorney fees in favor of the defendants. A motion to reconsider under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e)
may be granted to correct manifest errors, or in light of newly discovered evidence; such

a motion is directed not at initial consideration but reconsideration, and is appropriate
only if the court has obviously misapprehended a party’s position, the facts, or applicable
law, has mistakenly decided issues not presented for determination, or the moving party
produces new evidence which it could not have obtained through the exercise of due
diligence. Anderson v. United Auto Workers, 738 F.Supp. 441, 442 (D. Kan. 1989). A motion
to reconsider is not "a second chance for the losing party to make its strongest case or to
dress up arguments that previously failed." Voelkel v. GMC, 846 F.Supp. 1482 (D.Kan.),
aff’d, 43 F.3d 1484 (10th Cir. 1994). The resolution of the motion is committed to the
sound discretion of the court. Hancock v. City of Oklahoma City, 857 F.2d 1394, 1395 (10th
Cir. 1988).
Most of the plaintiff’s arguments were or could have been raised in the previous
pleadings. Plaintiff does cite (No. 18-1047-JTM, Dkt. 48) authority recognizing that an
ADA plaintiff may sue for all barriers to access at an accommodation, including those not
initially encountered by the plaintiff. See Doran v. 7-Eleven, 534 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2008).
But this general principle is not in question. As documented in the court’s prior Orders,
the plaintiff here engaged in a consistent pattern, across multiple cases, of engaging in
vexatious conduct by filing meritless, premature summary judgment motions (in
addition to expansive discovery requests) once the defendants undertook action to
correct all previously specified barriers. Such conduct betrays rather than advances the
goal of barrier remediation, and the court denies the plaintiffs’ motions.

2

The defendants have moved for addition attoney fees of $1575 to compensate for
responding to the reconsideration motions. The accompanying affidavit incates that
defendants’ counsel has filed a single uniform response in each of the three cases, and
presumably the total additional award would be split among each of the three
defendants. The amount seems reasonable, but the court will reserve ruling on
defendants’ motions for additional fees until plaintiff has had an opportunity to respond.
Such response is, of course, limited to the award of an additonal $1575 in fees.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this day of June, 2019, that the plaintiff’s
Motions for Reconsideration (Adams v. Cowley Cinema 8, No. 18-1034, Dkt. 36; Adams v.
Spangles, No. 18-1046, Dkt. 48; Adams v. Regal Hotels, No. 18-1047, Dkt. 48) are hereby
denied.

s/ J. Thomas Marten
J. Thomas Marten, Judge

3