Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02218/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02218-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1 

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KATHLEEN CHANDLER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ARIZONA PARTNERS RETAIL 

INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, an 

Arizona Limited Liability 

Company, Does 1 to 20 

 Defendants. /

No. Civ. S-04-2218 DFL JFM 

Memorandum of Opinion

and Order

Plaintiff Kathleen Chandler moves for a new trial on two 

grounds: (1) the court should not have dismissed her negligence 

per se claim, and (2) even if her negligence per se claim was 

correctly dismissed, the court should have allowed her to argue 

that the ramp was illegal under the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (“ADA”). Defendant Arizona Partners moves for sanctions on 

grounds that Chandler unjustifiably refused to answer certain 

pretrial requests for admission in the affirmative. Both 

motions are DENIED. 

Case 2:04-cv-02218-DFL -JFM Document 75 Filed 02/05/07 Page 1 of 4
2 

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

I. 

The court reaffirms the pretrial order dismissing 

Chandler’s negligence per se claim. Even if the ramp violated 

the ADA, Chandler lacks standing to bring a claim for negligence 

per se because she is not a member of the class of persons the 

ADA seeks to protect, and her injury is not of the kind the ADA 

seeks to prevent. 

Also without merit is Chandler’s assertion that she should 

have been allowed to show the ramp’s alleged noncompliance with 

the ADA as evidence of negligence. Chandler failed to show or 

make any proffer of how such evidence would have been relevant.1 

For these reasons, Chandler’s motion for a new trial is DENIED. 

II. 

Arizona Partners moves for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37 on grounds that Chandler unjustifiably denied four pre-trial 

requests for admission. The requested admissions were (1) 

plaintiff was negligent at the time of the accident; (2) 

plaintiff’s negligence was the legal cause of her injuries; (3) 

Arizona Partners was not negligent; and (4) Arizona Partners did 

not cause her injuries. Rule 37 allows the court to award costs 

and fees flowing from a party’s unjustified failure to answer 

 

1 On the other hand, Chandler was permitted to offer 

evidence and to argue that the ramp’s alleged noncompliance with 

the California Building Code specifications for ramps was 

evidence of negligence. See Jury Inst. 10. 

Case 2:04-cv-02218-DFL -JFM Document 75 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 4
3 

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

pretrial requests for admission. Arizona Partners argues that 

Chandler’s denials were “made without a reasonable ground or a 

good faith belief that [she] might prevail on the issue.” 

Arizona Partners’ argument with respect to the first two 

requests for admission is that because the jury found that 

Arizona Partners was not negligent, “the clear inference is that 

the jury found Ms. Chandler to be 100% at fault for the 

accident.” This does not follow. Not every accident is caused 

by negligence. Sometimes people trip and fall even when they 

are being reasonably careful. The jury’s finding that Arizona 

Partners was not negligent does not imply that it found Chandler 

negligent. 

Arizona Partners’ argument with respect to the second two 

requests for admission is also without merit. The defendant 

argues that Chandler lacked any reasonable basis for refusing to 

admit that Arizona Partners was not negligent. But at trial, 

Chandler presented expert testimony that the ramp was 

unreasonably dangerous. Given this evidence, it is not fair to 

say that Chandler lacked a reasonable basis to deny the requests 

for admission. Moreover, Arizona Partners could have brought a 

motion for summary judgment, but did not. 

Accordingly, Arizona Partners’ motion for sanctions is 

DENIED. 

Case 2:04-cv-02218-DFL -JFM Document 75 Filed 02/05/07 Page 3 of 4
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

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons discussed above, Chandler’s motion for a 

new trial and Arizona Partners’ motion for sanctions are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 5, 2007 

______________________________ 

DAVID F. LEVI 

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:04-cv-02218-DFL -JFM Document 75 Filed 02/05/07 Page 4 of 4