Runkle v. Rosauers Supermarkets, Inc. et al
ORDER denying 44 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 47 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and rejecting in part 69 Findings and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 7/12/2018. Copy mailed to Runkle. (ASG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
INC., BOB BURRIS, and RAY
United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered his Findings and
Recommendations in this case on June 7, 2018, recommending that Defendants
Bob Burris ("Burris") and Ray Sprinkle's ("Sprinkle") Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 47) be granted and Defendant Rosauers Supermarkets, Inc.'s
("Rosauers") Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 44) be denied. (Doc. 69 at 9.)
Rosauers timely filed an objection on June 13, 2018. (Doc. 70.) Consequently,
Rosauers is entitled to de novo review of those findings and recommendations to
which it has specifically objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b )(1 )(C). Absent objection,
this Court reviews findings and recommendations for clear error. United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane); Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Clear error exists ifthe Court is left with a "definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235
F .3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). "A party makes a proper
objection by identifying the parts of the magistrate's disposition that the party finds
objectionable and presenting legal argument and supporting authority, such that the
district court is able to identify the issues and the reasons supporting a contrary
result." Montana Shooting Sports Ass 'n v. Holder, 2010 WL 4102940, at *2 (D.
Mont. Oct. 18, 2010) (citation omitted).
Rosauers specifically objects only to Judge Lynch's factual finding that
Plaintiff Elizabeth Runkle ("Runkle") disclosed to Burris, Rosauers' store
manager, that she is disabled due to a mental illness in January of 2014. (Doc. 70
at 4.) Defendants assert that the date ofRunkle's disclosure should not have been
found by Judge Lynch because it was disputed by the Parties and immaterial to his
decision on the summary judgment motions. (Id. at 5.) Upon review, this Court
agrees. While Rosauers' Statement of Undisputed Facts merely states that "Runkle
alleges she informed Rosauers that she had a mental health disability in 2014,"
(Doc. 46 at 2), Runkle's Statement of Disputed Facts counters with three pages
supporting the specific date of January 15, 2014 (Doc. 61 at 3-6). Rosauers claims
that it "carefully omitted any reference to a specific date ... because this factual
detail was not material to the issues presented to the Court and because Rosauers
knew this was a disputed fact. Rosauers has consistently opposed Plaintiffs
assertion that she disclosed her disability on January 15, 2014." (Doc. 70 at 5.)
Indeed, Rosauers has consistently contested the January 15, 2014, date throughout
these proceedings. (See Docs. 16 at 5 (November 2014 disclosure); 39 at 4
(denying January 2014 disclosure).) Further, the exact date was not material to
Judge Lynch's decision.
Reviewing the remaining portions of Judge Lynch's Findings and
Recommendations for clear error and finding none,
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendations (Doc.
69) are ADOPTED IN PART AND REJECTED IN PART. The Court rejects
Judge Lynch's factual finding that Runkle disclosed her mental illness to Burris in
January of 2014 as this fact remains disputed by the Parties and is immaterial to
Judge Lynch's decision. Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendations are
adopted in all other respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Burris and Sprinkle' s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 47) is GRANTED and Runkle's claims against them
under the ADA are DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rosauers' Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 44) is DENIED.
DATED this 12.uaay of July, 2018.
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court
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?