Matt Strong v. Valdez Fine Foods
724 F.3d 1042
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff Matt Strong, a C-5 quadriplegic, visited a Peter Piper Pizza in El Cajon, CA and sued under the ADA and related California disability statutes alleging architectural barriers (parking, aisles, signage, restroom clearances, slopes).
- Strong missed the deadline to disclose an expert; he did not seek an extension and instead incorporated measurements from another person’s report into his sworn declaration and identified that person’s measuring tools.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding Strong lacked personal knowledge of the measured defects and that he was improperly offering expert-level opinions without qualification; the court also required proof that removal of barriers was “readily achievable.”
- The Ninth Circuit majority reversed and remanded, holding Strong’s declaration raised genuine factual disputes sufficient to survive summary judgment and that expert testimony was not required for the cited ADA compliance facts.
- The Ninth Circuit also held the district court erred in applying the “readily achievable” standard to new construction, which instead must meet ADA standards unless structurally impracticable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal-knowledge/admissibility of Strong’s declaration | Strong says he personally encountered barriers, was present while measurements were taken, and relies on his sworn observations and memory | Measurements reported by another are hearsay; Strong lacks personal knowledge of the actual measurements | Strong’s sworn statements about barriers and presence during measurements meet the minimal personal-knowledge threshold to survive summary judgment (fact weight for trial) |
| Use of out-of-court measurements reported by another | Strong incorporated another’s measurements into his declaration but claims presence and corroboration of his observations | Defendants: those measurement statements are inadmissible hearsay because the measurer wasn’t disclosed/testified | Majority: much of Strong’s testimony reflects his own observations; where measurements are based on his presence they are admissible for summary-judgment purposes; dissent would exclude claims dependent on the absent declarant’s measurements |
| Need for expert testimony to opine on ADA barriers | Strong: no expert needed; jurors can understand slopes, signage, clearances from lay observation | Defendants/district court: Strong failed to show expert qualifications and therefore cannot opine whether conditions violate the ADA | Expert testimony not required where jurors can understand the facts; district court abused discretion in treating Strong’s statements as improper expert opinion |
| Application of "readily achievable" standard | Strong: restaurant is new construction and must meet ADA standards; no showing required that removal be "readily achievable" | District court applied the "readily achievable" test and required proof of feasibility | For new construction, the "readily achievable" standard does not apply; new construction must be accessible unless structurally impracticable |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (defines program accessibility standard under ADA)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and drawing inferences for nonmoving party)
- Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 1995) (verified complaint can satisfy personal-knowledge requirement)
- Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Prof'l Real Estate Investors, 944 F.2d 1525 (9th Cir. 1991) (declaration based on information and belief insufficient)
- Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2003) (admission of diary entries reflecting personal knowledge may be admissible)
- Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2008) (measurements required to prove noncompliance with specific ADAAG dimensions)
- Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 643 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2011) (new construction must be readily accessible under §12183)
- Long v. Coast Resorts, Inc., 267 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2001) (distinguishing standards for barrier removal in new vs. existing facilities)
- United States v. Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d 1275 (9th Cir. 1993) (experts may not instruct jury on law)
- Leadbetter v. Glaisyer, 44 F.2d 350 (9th Cir. 1930) (lay witnesses may estimate measurable quantities; weight, not admissibility)
- Nelson v. City of Davis, 685 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2012) (permitting lay estimates of distance)
- Young v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R., 618 F.2d 332 (5th Cir. 1980) (allowing lay estimates of width; exclusion is abuse of discretion)