Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00209/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00209-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Andrew N. Milsap, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CIV 06-0209 PHX RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Republic Western Ins. Co., )

)

Defendant. ) )

Currently pending before the court are two motions:

"Defendant Republic Western Insurance Company's ["Republic"]

Second Motion to Dismiss" (doc. 20); and (2) Republic's "Second

Request for Summary Disposition" (doc. 21). For the reasons set

forth below, the court grants the former motion, but denies the

latter. 

Background

On December 18, 2006, the court dismissed nearly all of the

claims by pro se plaintiff, Andrew N. Milsap. See Doc. 19

("Milsap I"). In the penultimate paragraph of Milsap I the court

explicitly "ORDER[ED] that if plaintiff desires to proceed with 

Case 2:06-cv-00209-RCB Document 22 Filed 06/25/07 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 In accordance with Local Rule 7.2©, "[t]he opposing party shall, . .

. , have ten (10) days after service in a civil . . . case within which to serve

and file a responsive memorandum[]" in opposition to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to

dismiss such as this. 

- 2 -

this action, he must file and serve his second amended complaint

within thirty (30) days of the date of this order and such amended

complaint must be in full conformity with the court's ruling

herein[.]" Id. at 36, ¶ (9). To date, plaintiff has not complied

with that order.

In the meantime, on February 15, 2007, Republic filed its

Second Motion to Dismiss, which is directed to the only remaining

claim against it -- a claim based upon Title III of the Americans

With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq. ("ADA"). 

On the merits, Republic argued that dismissal is mandated for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because plaintiff is seeking only

monetary damages; and such relief is not available under Title III

of the ADA. Alternatively, Republic sought dismissal on the

procedural grounds that plaintiff had not complied with Milsap I

because by filing his second amended complaint within 30 days of

the date thereof (i.e. by approximately Jan. 20, 2007). Plaintiff

never responded to this motion, even though the time to do so has

long since passed.1

On March 14, 2007, Republic filed a "Second Request for

Summary Disposition," wherein it sought an "Order Summarily

granting Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss[]" because, as just

noted, plaintiff failed to respond to that motion. Doc. 21. Local

Rule 7.2(I) is the basis for this particular motion. That Rule

provides in relevant part that "if the unrepresented party . . .

Case 2:06-cv-00209-RCB Document 22 Filed 06/25/07 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

does not serve and file the required answering memoranda, . . .

such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or

granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion

summarily." LRCiv 7.2(I). As with Republic's Second Motion to

Dismiss, Plaintiff never responded to this motion.

Discussion

I. "Second Motion to Dismiss"

Plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's order in Milsap

I could provide a sufficient basis for granting Republic's Second

Motion to Dismiss. See Grimes v. Barnhart, 2006 WL 294801, at *4

(N.D.Cal. Feb. 7, 2006) (citing Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe,

Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 16:429.20)("[T]he court has

inherent power to dismiss for . . . failure to comply with court

orders.") In a similar vein, as noted above, pursuant to LRCiv

7.2(I), plaintiff's failure to respond could provide a sufficient

basis for granting this motion. 

Given plaintiff's pro se status, however, the court has opted

to address the merits of Republic's dismissal motion, albeit not

extensively. The only damages which plaintiff seeks in his Amended

Complaint are monetary; he is seeking $800,000.00. Doc. 11 at 7. 

Republic accurately asserts, however, that monetary damages are not

available under Title III of the ADA. The ADA is clear on this

point. Because "[o]ne of the purposes of the ADA is to provide

people with disabilities access to places of public

accommodation[,] . . . [i]n an effort to achieve this goal as

quickly as possible, Congress created a cause of action for private

individuals, but limited the remedies available under that cause of

action to 'preventative' or equitable relief." Fischer v. SJB-P.D.

Case 2:06-cv-00209-RCB Document 22 Filed 06/25/07 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12188(a)(1)) (footnote omitted) (emphasis in original). 

"Monetary relief is not an option for private individuals under

Title III of the ADA." Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1))

(emphasis added). The only time an aggrieved person is allowed to

recover monetary damages under that Title is when a discrimination

case is brought by the Attorney General. 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b)

(West 2005). Obviously, this is not such a case. Consequently,

because the only relief which plaintiff Milsap is seeking is

monetary, and because such relief is not recoverable under Title

III of the ADA, Republic is entitled to dismissal for failure to

state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

II. "Second Request for Summary Disposition"

Granting Republic's Second Motion to Dismiss on the merits,

renders moot Republic's "Second Request For Summary Disposition"

for failure to comply with LRCiv 7.2(I). Accordingly, the court

denies this motion (doc. 21) as moot. 

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, 

It Is hereby ORDERED that defendant Republic Western Insurance

Company's Second Motion to Dismiss (doc. 20) is GRANTED; and

accordingly, plaintiff Andrew N. Milsap's Amended Complaint (doc.

11) is dismissed in its entirety as against defendant Republic; and 

It Is FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Republic Western

Insurance Company's Second Request for Summary Disposition is

DENIED as moot (doc. 21). 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in

accordance herewith.

Case 2:06-cv-00209-RCB Document 22 Filed 06/25/07 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

DATED this 25th day of June, 2007.

Copies to plaintiff, pro se, and counsel of record

Case 2:06-cv-00209-RCB Document 22 Filed 06/25/07 Page 5 of 5