Miles v. Mackinaw Catering. Inc
Filing
13
ORDER Denying 9 Motion to Strike Jury Demand and Canceling Hearing. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (Sian, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL MILES,
Plaintiff,
v
Case No. 15-cv-13996
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
MACKINAW CATERING, INC., d/b/a
Days Inn Mackinaw City-Lakeview
Defendant.
__________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE JURY DEMAND
AND CANCELING HEARING
Plaintiff Michael Miles initiated the above-actioned matter by filing his two-count
complaint on November 13, 2015 against Defendant Mackinaw Catering, Inc., d/b/a/ Days Inn
Mackinaw City-Lakeview (“Mackinaw Catering”). ECF No. 1.
In the first count of his
complaint, Miles alleges that Mackinaw Catering discriminated against him in violation of Title
III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182, et seq. (the “ADA”) by failing to
provide accessible facilities. In a his second count, Miles alleges that Mackinaw Catering has
violated the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.1301, et seq.,
(“PWDCRA”) by denying Miles the full enjoyment of its goods, services, accommodations,
advantages, facilities, or privileges. See Compl. ¶¶ 20-23.
Defendant Mackinaw Catering filed an answer to Miles’ complaint on December 8, 2015,
along with a demand for a jury trial. ECF No. 5. On December 29, 2015 Miles filed a motion to
strike Mackinaw Catering’s demand for a jury trial pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(f) and 39. See ECF No. 9. The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers. They adequately set
forth the legal and factual information necessary to determination of the motion, making oral
argument unnecessary. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff Miles’ motion will be denied.
I.
According to his complaint, Plaintiff Michael Miles is an Ohio resident who qualifies as
an individual with a disability as defined by the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2); 28 C.F.R. 36.104.
Compl. ¶ 4. Specifically, Miles is a paraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility, and is thus
substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities. Id. at ¶ 7.
Miles claims that he patronized Defendant Mackinaw Catering’s place of business in
Mackinaw City, Michigan, and that he plans to return to the property in the future. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 8.
Miles alleges that Defendant’s facilities are a place of public accommodation as defined by the
ADA, 28 C.F.R. 36.201(a) & 36.104, and that Defendant’s facilities are not in compliance with
the remedial provisions of the ADA. Id. at ¶ 6.
Miles filed his complaint on November 13, 2015, alleging that during his visit he
personally experienced barriers to access at Mackinaw Catering’s facility, including the
following: (1) lack of designated accessible parking spaces and designated access aisles; (2)
inaccessible service counter; (3) inaccessible pool and spa; (4) lack of designated access routes;
(5) lack of handrails on ramps in the registration and check-in area; (6) inadequate designated
accessible room; (7) insufficient number of designated accessible guestrooms; and (8) inadequate
policies and procedures for assisting disabled persons. Compl. ¶¶ 8, 9, 13.
Miles alleges that these barriers to access constitute discrimination under both the ADA
and the PWDCRA. Under the ADA, Miles requests equitable relief, seeking an injunction
requiring Mackinaw Catering to alter its property pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12187. See Compl. ¶¶
15-19. Under the PWDCRA, Miles seeks compensatory and applicable damages, attorney’s fees
-2-
and costs, as well as the issuance of an injunction requiring Defendant to allow “full and equal
enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, and advantages to disabled persons.” Id.
at ¶ 23.
II.
Plaintiff Miles now moves to strike Defendant’s demand for a jury trial pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39. ECF No. 9. Under Rule 39(a), all issues subject to a jury
demand must be tried by a jury unless “the court, on motion or on its own, finds that on some or
all of those issues there is no federal right to a jury trial.” Id. Miles alleges that there is no right
to a jury trial for his equitable relief claims under the ADA. See, e.g. Dorsey v. City of Detroit,
157 F. Supp. 2d 729, 733 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (“Title III of the ADA does not provide for
monetary damages or, concomitantly, a jury trial, when the action is brought by a ‘person who is
being subjected to discrimination.’”) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2)).
In its response, Defendant does not dispute this allegation. See ECF No. 11. Instead,
Defendant argues that it is entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment as to Miles’
second claim under the PWDCRA. ECF No. 11. Defendant therefore argues that, in the interest
of judicial economy, a jury should try both claims. Miles disagrees, arguing that there is no right
to a jury trial under his PWDCRA claim.1 To the contrary, because the § 37.1606(1) expressly
permits recovery of damages for violations of the PWDCRA, Defendant is entitled to a trial by
jury on that claim under the Seventh Amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. VII. (“In Suits at
common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by
jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of
the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”) Because Defendant is
1
Miles alternative argument that the matter should be bifurcated will not be addressed. As explained in this Court’s
practice guidelines, “under no circumstances may a motion be included within the text or footnotes of another
motion.”
-3-
entitled to a jury trial on Miles’ PWDCRA claim, Miles motion to strike Defendant’s jury
demand will be denied.
III.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff Michael Miles’ motion to strike Defendant’s
jury demand, ECF No. 9, is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that the hearing scheduled for March 17, 2016 is CANCELED.
See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2).
s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge
Dated: March 3, 2016
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on March 3, 2016.
s/Michael A. Sian
MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager
-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?