Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89228
E.D. Cal.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint asserts an ADA Title III claim against Pier 1 Imports and state claims for disability accessibility violations.
- Chapman previously litigated barriers at Pier 1 Vacaville, including clutter at the accessible counter and narrow aisles.
- Defendant moves for summary judgment alleging mootness, temporary/movable barriers, and lack of competent evidence; Chapman cross-moves for summary judgment on ADA and state claims.
- The court excludes a declarant’s testimony (Snow) for discovery abuse, finds genuine disputes about obstruction status, and grants judgment for Chapman on the ADA and state claims.
- The court rules the ADA and state claims are not moot to the extent of present obstructions, and orders proceedings for a permanent injunction; some related motions are denied or resolved.
- The remaining disputes concern whether barriers were isolated/temporary, and whether a store-wide pattern of obstruction violated the ADA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ADA claim is moot | Chapman contends barriers recur and cannot be mooted by brief clearing | Pier 1 argues counter clear on a single day moots claim | Not moot; ongoing obstructions persist |
| Whether barriers were movable or temporary | Barriers obstructed aisles and counter on multiple visits | Movable/temporary barriers do not violate the ADA | Material facts disputed; not resolved as temporary/movable |
| Whether Snow Declaration was admissible | Snow was not disclosed as a witness; declaration should be struck | Snow testimony is relevant and previously undisclosed | Snow Declaration excluded; improper to use on motion |
| Whether state claims rise with ADA violation | State claims depend on ADA violation | Abandoned or unsupported separate state claims | State claims denied as to merits on cross-motion; related to ADA findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2002) (mootness where transfer of property ended involvement)
- Dufresne v. Veneman, 114 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam; permanent cessation can moot a case)
- DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1974) (voluntary cessation not enough to moot unless no reasonable expectation of recurrence)
- Pickern v. Best Western Timber Cove Lodge Marina Resort, 194 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (permanence of remedial measures can moot a claim)
- Kohler v. Flava Enterprises, Inc., 826 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (counter usability not dispositive where clutter denies access)
- Miller v. California Speedway Corp., 536 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2008) (DOJ guidance; ADA regulations must be followed; not disabled to remove barriers)