Martinez v. Columbia Sportswear USA Corp.
859 F. Supp. 2d 1174
E.D. Cal.2012Background
- Plaintiff is a paraplegic wheelchair user who sued twenty-one retailers in Vacaville Premium Outlet Mall for alleged ADA discrimination.
- Columbia Sportswear and Eddie Bauer moved for summary judgment on the ADA claims; Plaintiff also sought summary judgment against them and injunctive relief under the ADA and damages under California law.
- New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc. was previously granted summary judgment; this ruling was a baseline for the remaining defendants.
- The court denied motions to strike supporting evidence as moot since no triable ADA issues remained from the evidence presented.
- Plaintiff sought a Rule 56(d) continuance to inspect barriers; the court denied the request for lack of diligent discovery support.
- The court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants on all ADA claims and dismissed the state-law claims, closing the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA injunctive relief is warranted against both defendants | Plaintiff asserts barriers exist and require removal or alteration. | Defendants contend barriers were addressed or are not proven as current barriers; some barriers moot. | ADA claims resolved in favor of both defendants; no injunctions required. |
| Whether Eddie Bauer's ISA sign barrier exists and is actionable | Sign is too low and constitutes an ADA barrier. | Sign is present; plaintiff offered insufficient evidence of height. | Eddie Bauer's ISA sign barrier is not shown; continental summary judgment granted for Eddie Bauer on this claim. |
| Whether moveable display racks create ADA barriers in aisles | Aisles with moveable racks were too narrow, violating ADAAG 4.3.3. | Evidence shows aisles width meet or the issue is moot due to conduct of stores; plaintiff's own admissions undermine claims. | Material barriers not proven; portions denied as to plaintiff; other aspects moot due to changes. |
| Whether Eddie Bauer’s dressing room bench complies with ADA dimensions | Bench longer than 48 inches violates 24x48 bench requirement. | Bench provides substantially equivalent access; not a barrier. | Plaintiff's claim denied; bench deemed equivalent facilitation; Eddie Bauer granted on this issue. |
| Whether other ADA barriers (paypoint, clear floor space, counter height, counter depth) exist | Barriers at paypoint, counter space, and height impede access. | Evidence does not support remaining barriers; some claims lack factual support. | Court grants summary judgment for Eddie Bauer on paypoint and counter-height; plaintiff's remaining assertions rejected or moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- ACLU v. City of Las Vegas, 466 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 2006) (standard for evaluating cross-motions and relief)
- Brae Transp., Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 790 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1986) (discovery diligence in Rule 56(d) context)
- Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2011) (notice and pleading requirements for ADA barriers; disclosure rule)
- Kohler v. Flava Enters. Inc., 826 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (equivalent facilitation doctrine for bench dimensions)
- Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2010) (evidence- and triable-fact standard in summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (burden shifting for summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine dispute requires evidence; standard for summary judgment)