Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03119/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03119-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

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

David Normann, a single man, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Chapman Automotive Group, LLC, an

Arizona company, dba Chapman

Automotive Complex, Chapman

Scottsdale Autoplex, LLC, an Arizona

company,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-3119-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Alternative Motion

for More Definite Statement (Doc. # 8).

I. Background

On January 18, 2007, Plaintiff, who is confined to a wheelchair due to multiple

sclerosis, filed an amended complaint alleging that while on Defendants' property he

encountered various barriers to accessibility in violation of the Americans with Disabilities

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq. (the "ADA") and the Arizona Civil Rights Act, A.R.S. § 41-

1492, et seq. (the "ACRA"). Plaintiff alleges that he encountered the barriers in, among other

things, the men's restroom involving the sink area and the toilet stall. Plaintiff further alleges

he expects discovery will reveal numerous other barriers to accessibility. Plaintiff seeks

injunctive relief, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the ADA and

the ACRA. 

Case 2:06-cv-03119-HRH Document 14 Filed 05/01/07 Page 1 of 4
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 - 2 -

On January 23, 2007, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss and Alternative

Motion for More Definite Statement (Doc. # 8). Defendants argue that Plaintiff's amended

complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim and request that the Court dismiss

the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or,

in the alternative, order a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure.

II. Legal Standard

A. Failure to State a Claim

A court may not dismiss a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) "unless it appears beyond doubt

that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claims which would entitle him

to relief." Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Buckley v. Los

Angeles, 957 F.2d 652, 654 (9th Cir. 1992)). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim

is disfavored and rarely granted. Gilligan v. Jamco Dev. Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 248-49 (9th

Cir. 1997). "All that is required are sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice

of the claims against them." McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). Further,

the Court must construe the facts alleged in the complaint in the light most favorable to

Plaintiff and the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. See Shwarz

v. United States, 234 F.3d 428, 435 (9th Cir. 2000). Nonetheless, Plaintiff must still meet the

pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 8, the

counterclaims must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief." Finally, the Court must assume that all general allegations "embrace

whatever specific facts might be necessary to support them." Peloza v. Capistrano Unified

School District, 37 F.3d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1994).

B. More Definite Statement

Under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may move for a

more definite statement if a pleading is "so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot

reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading." A motion under Rule 12(e) is

Case 2:06-cv-03119-HRH Document 14 Filed 05/01/07 Page 2 of 4
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 -

designed to attack unintelligibility rather than a lack of detail. Resolution Trust Corp. v.

Dean, 854 F.Supp. 626, 649 (D.Ariz. 1994) (citing Woods v. Reno Commodities, Inc., 600

F.Supp. 574, 580 (D.Nev. 1984)). Such motions are not favored because "the pleadings in

the federal courts are only required to fairly notify the opposing party of the nature of the

claim." Id. (quoting A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. Smith, 736 F.Supp. 1030, 1032 (D.Ariz.

1989)). 

III. Discussion

In their motion, Defendants represent that, to state a claim for relief concerning an

existing structure under the ADA and the ACRA, Plaintiff must allege a barrier to

accessibility exists and removal of the barrier is readily achievable, which means the removal

can be accomplished easily and without much difficulty or expense. Defendants also

represent that Plaintiff must allege he was denied access on terms sufficiently comparable

to other patrons. Thereafter, Defendants argue Plaintiff's amended complaint fails to

sufficiently allege the existence of a barrier because the amended complaint refers only to

a "men's restroom" and the property contains several men's restrooms. Defendants also argue

Plaintiff's failure to identify with specificity any barrier to accessibility renders insufficient

his conclusory allegation that removal is readily achievable. Finally, Defendants argue the

amended complaint makes no reference to Plaintiff being denied access to the property on

terms sufficiently comparable to other patrons.

In contrast, Plaintiff represents that to state a claim under the ADA, he must show (1)

he has a disability; (2) the Defendants own, operate, lease or lease to others a place of public

accommodation; and (3) he was denied full and equal treatment because of his disability.

Plaintiff argues he has sufficiently pleaded the required elements. In addition, Plaintiff

disagrees with Defendants' representation that he must allege a barrier to accessibility exists

and removal of the barrier is readily achievable. Plaintiff further disagrees with Defendants'

representation that he must allege he was denied access on terms sufficiently comparable to

other patrons.

Case 2:06-cv-03119-HRH Document 14 Filed 05/01/07 Page 3 of 4
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 -

The Court finds it unnecessary at this time to determine the appropriate elements of

Plaintiff's claims because, under either Defendants' version or Plaintiff's version, the

allegations in Plaintiff's amended complaint are sufficient to state a cause of action under the

ADA and the ACRA. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendants own, operate,

lease or lease to others an automotive dealership at 6601 E. McDowell Road, Scottsdale,

Arizona. Plaintiff further alleges he is disabled and requires the use of a wheelchair, he

visited Defendants' property on or about October 30, 2006, and the property contained

various barriers to accessibility, including in the men's restroom involving the sink area and

toilet stall. Finally, Plaintiff alleges Defendants are obligated to remove the barriers and

removal of the barriers is readily achievable. These allegations are sufficient to put

Defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them and relief under Rule 12(b)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not appropriate. Further, because the Court does not find

the allegations to be vague or ambiguous so as to prevent Defendants from reasonably

framing a responsive pleading, relief under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure is not appropriate. 

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Alternative Motion for

More Definite Statement (Doc. # 8) is DENIED.

DATED this 1st day of May, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-03119-HRH Document 14 Filed 05/01/07 Page 4 of 4