This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
ADA
Unruh Civil Rights Act

Luis Marquez v. Ralphs Grocery Company, and Does 1-10

Published: Jan. 15, 2021 | Result Date: Dec. 4, 2020 | Filing Date: Jun. 27, 2019 |

Case number: 8:19-cv-01300-JLS-DFM Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Josephine L. Staton

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Russell C. Handy
(Center for Disability Access)

Raymond G. Ballister Jr.
(Center for Disability Access)

Phyl Grace
(Center for Disability Access)

Dennis J. Price II
(Center for Disability Access)


Defendant

Gregory F. Hurley
(Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP)

Michael J. Chilleen
(Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP)


Facts

Luis Marquez had certain physical disabilities that caused him to be wheelchair bound. Marquez visited the meat department in a Food 4 Less store in Fullerton, California owned by Ralphs Grocery Company. After Marquez's visit, he sued Ralphs under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Ralphs later moved for summary judgment against Marquez.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant failed to provide self-service areas that were accessible to people with physical disabilities. Plaintiff was restricted from selecting a number at the meat counter because of defendant's failure to construct the area for wheelchair accessibility as required by the ADA. Moreover, plaintiff was unable to reach the restroom facilities due to structural barriers. As a result, plaintiff contended that defendant was liable under the ADA and Unruh Civil Rights Act for failing to maintain its property in a way that was accessible to people with disabilities.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that the ADA does not apply to shelves or display units in a venue open to the public. Moreover, self-services areas were not within the purview of the ADA. Defendant further contended that because plaintiff failed to allege his restroom accessibility claim in his complaint and only did so after defendant's answer, the claim could not be asserted. Defendant ultimately contended that because there were no legally cognizable claims in plaintiff's complaint, defendant's motion for summary judgment should be granted as a matter of law.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.


#136404

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390