Shaw v. Jar-Ramona Plaza, LLC
United States District Court for the Central District of California
March 16, 2015, Decided; March 16, 2015, Filed
Case No. 5:13-cv-01563-CAS(SPx)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL 'O'
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS): PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AGAINST DEFENDANT JAR-RAMONA (dkt. 98-1, filed Jan. 28, 2015)
Plaintiff Cecil Shaw asserts that he is disabled and was denied equal access and accommodations at a shopping plaza owned by defendant Jar-Ramona Plaza, LLC ("Jar-Ramona"). On March 7, 2013, plaintiff filed this action against Jar-Ramona and its tenants, defendants Leslie's Poolmart ("Leslie's"), Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. ("Dollar Tree"), Radio Shack Corporation ("RadioShack"), Grocery Outlet, Inc. ("Grocery Outlet"), Grocery Outlet Hemet #100, Inc. ("Grocery Outlet #100"), and Mehnga Foods, doing business as Subway #33424 ("Subway"). His first amended complaint ("FAC") asserts claims under (1) certain provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182-83, (2) California's Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51, et seq., and (3) California Health and Safety Code § 19955. Dkt. 57.
On February 10, 2014, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Jar-Ramona's motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 48. On April 23, 2014, plaintiff filed his FAC. Dkt. 57. On May 2, 2014, Jar-Ramona filed a motion to strike certain allegations. Dkt. 58. The Court denied Jar-Ramona's motion and, in so doing, amended its February 10, 2014 order to vacate its decision granting summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for damages under the Unruh Act. Dkt. 69; Dkt. 27 at 3-4. On September 25, 2014, Jar-Ramona moved for partial summary judgment, challenging two of plaintiff's claims for damages under the Unruh Act, both predicated on barriers to access that he allegedly encountered in the parking lot. Dkt. 81. On October 27, 2014, the Court denied Jar-Ramona's motion. Dkt. 93.
On January 28, 2015, plaintiff filed the present motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication against Jar-Ramona. Dkt. 98. On February 9, 2015, Jar-Ramona filed its opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 99. On February 13, 2015, plaintiff filed his reply, dkt. 101, and on January 19, 2015, Jar-Ramona filed a sur-reply with leave of the Court, dkt. 105. On March 2, 2015, the Court held a hearing and heard oral argument. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the motion for summary judgment.Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33810 *; 2015 WL 1275294
SHAW v. JAR-RAMONA PLAZA, LLC
Subsequent History: Affirmed by Shaw v. Jar-Ramona Plaza, LLC, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 907 (9th Cir. Cal., Jan. 18, 2017)
Prior History: Shaw v. Jar-Ramona Plaza LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30828 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 7, 2014)
Grocery, barriers, spaces, Plaza, summary judgment, summary judgment motion, parking lot, slope, injunction, parking space, settlement agreement, Declaration, wheelchair, asserts, encountered, disability, moving party, nonmoving, visited, front, table and chairs, photographs, temporary, shopping, travel, path