Sandi Rush v. Sport Chalet, Inc.
779 F.3d 973
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Sandi Rush, a wheelchair user, sued multiple retailers and the shopping-center owner under the ADA alleging inaccessible features at three stores in a Foothill Ranch shopping center.
- Complaint originally named Babies "R" Us, Petsmart, Sport Chalet, and Foothill Ranch, LLC (the presumed landlord).
- Rush settled and voluntarily dismissed Babies "R" Us; six days later the district court sua sponte concluded the remaining defendants were improperly joined and severed and dismissed claims against Petsmart, Sport Chalet, and Foothill Ranch without prejudice.
- The district court treated the claims as arising from separate transactions and did not assess prejudice to Rush from dismissal.
- Rush appealed; the Ninth Circuit reviewed the Rule 20 joinder question de novo and the Rule 21 severance/dismissal decision for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Foothill Ranch (landlord) was permissibly joined with Babies "R" Us under Rule 20(a)(2) | Joinder proper because landlord–tenant relationship connects claims arising from access barriers at the tenant's premises | Foothill Ranch disputed some factual allegations but did not assert misjoinder as a legal defense | Reversed district court: landlord and tenant were properly joined under Rule 20 because landlord is jointly liable for ADA violations at the tenant's establishment (Botosan rule) |
| Whether district court abused discretion by dismissing rather than severing claims against Petsmart and Sport Chalet under Rule 21 | Rush argued dismissal without prejudice still causes prejudice (e.g., statute-of-limitations loss) and court must analyze prejudice before dismissing | District court treated defendants as misjoined and dismissed/severed without prejudice but did not analyze plaintiff prejudice | Vacated and remanded: court abused its discretion by dismissing without conducting a prejudice analysis; courts must consider prejudice (including potential time-bar of claims) and, if necessary, allow severed suits to proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Botosan v. Paul McNally Realty, 216 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2000) (landlord is a necessary/liable party in ADA actions at tenant premises)
- EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal Co., 610 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for joinder and Rule 21 issues)
- DirecTV, Inc. v. Leto, 467 F.3d 842 (3d Cir. 2006) (district courts must analyze prejudice, including statute-of-limitations risk, when dismissing misjoined claims)
- Elmore v. Henderson, 227 F.3d 1009 (7th Cir. 2000) (remedy for misjoinder should avoid creating time-barred separate suits)