Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06817/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06817-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BYRON CHAPMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TAMALPAIS MOTEL, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 17-cv-06817-CW 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 

(Dkt. No. 20) 

Plaintiff Byron Chapman brought this case against Defendants 

Tamalpais Motel, Jana Ehinger Martin and Lessa L. Cody as CoTrustees of the Jana Ehinger Martin Revocable Trust of 2014, 

Leesa L. Cody as Trustee of the Leesa L. Cody Family Trust, and 

Arvind Mahendra dba Tamalpais Motel, asserting a cause of action 

for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

(ADA), among others. On April 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion 

seeking declaratory judgment that an indemnity agreement between 

Defendants does not affect their joint and several liability to 

Plaintiff under the ADA. Plaintiff’s motion is construed as a 

motion for summary adjudication of that issue. Defendants did 

not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the 

motion, as required under Civil Local Rule 7-3(1) and (b).1

 

The Court agrees that Botosan v. Paul McNally Realty stands 

for the proposition that both a landlord who owns the building 

that houses a place of public accommodation and a tenant who owns 

 1

 In the future, Defendants must respond to any dispositive 

motions brought by Plaintiff. Failure to do so may result in the 

Court granting summary judgment against Defendants. 

Case 4:17-cv-06817-CW Document 28 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 2
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

or operates a place of public accommodation are required to 

comply with the ADA, and that any contract “allocation of 

responsibility between the landlord and a tenant by lease is 

effective only as between the parties,” and thus “has no effect 

on the rights of third parties.” 216 F.3d 827, 833 (9th Cir. 

2000) (internal punctuation omitted). But Plaintiff has not 

provided the evidence necessary to carry his burden of showing 

that no genuine and disputed issues of material fact remain, and 

when, viewing the evidence most favorably to the non-moving 

party, he is clearly entitled to prevail as a matter of law. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-

23 (1986); Eisenberg v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 815 F.2d 1285, 1288-

89 (9th Cir. 1987). For example, his motion is not clear as to 

which Defendants he deems the “business owner defendants” and 

which he deems the “property owner defendants.” He has not shown 

that the various Defendants are owners or operators of a place of 

public accommodation subject to the ADA. Plaintiff also did not 

provide a copy of the lease or indemnity agreement. Thus, 

Plaintiff’s motion is denied without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 13, 2018 

CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:17-cv-06817-CW Document 28 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 2