Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00840/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00840-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Edward G. Lesofski, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Jarrod Lash, individually and in his official

capacity as an Instructor at Arizona School of

Acupuncture & Oriental Medicine, et al., 

Defendants. _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 11-840 TUC DCB

ORDER

On December 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed the Complaint, alleging Defendants failed to

comply with non-discrimination laws, the American with Disabilities Act and the

Rehabilitation Act, by failing to accommodate his disability. He also asserted fraud claims

against the Defendant alleging they falsely held themselves out to comply with these laws.

On June 25, 2013, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for bullying and claims against the

Commission under the ADA and RA. (Order (Doc. 104)). On September 12, 2013, the

Court granted summary judgment for Defendant Lightener, ordered Plaintiff to refile the

Second Amended Complaint (Order (Doc. 124)), and on November 1, 2013, the Court

granted Plaintiff an extension of time and reset the case management deadlines for the case:

discovery due 11/30/2013; dispositive motions due 12/31/2013, and the Proposed Pretrial

Order due January 31, 2014, (Order (Doc. 141)). On December 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed

a Notice he had accepted an offer of settlement from Defendant Accreditation Commission

for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (ACAOM). The case remained as to Defendants

Jarrod Lash, Susan Wagner, David Eply and the Arizona School of Acupuncture & Oriental

Case 4:11-cv-00840-DCB Document 172 Filed 09/30/14 Page 1 of 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

1

On November 19, 2011, this Court denied the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for

Plaintiff’s lack of prosecution due to failing to engage in discovery, and gave the Plaintiff 7

days to respond to discovery requests and reset the discovery deadlines. 

2

 Even though an automatic stay is in place for Defendant Wagner, the Court grants

summary judgment for all Defendants, including Defendant Wagner.

3

Dismissal is proper where party fails to follow a district court's local rules. United

States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979).

2

Medicine, the ASAOM Defendants.1 On July 10, 2014, the ASAOM Defendants filed a

Motion for Summary Judgment.

Defendants make the following arguments for summary judgment: 1) upon

Plaintiff’s application and admission to the school, the only accommodation requested and

granted was for his service dog to accompany him at school; 2) November 2011, Plaintiff

asked for and was granted test-taking accommodations, but failed to take his exams and

failed his courses; 3) Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case under the ADA or the RA.

Defendants assert the Plaintiff cannot establish he is disabled as defined under the ADA

because he presents only evidence of a diagnosis for panic disorder without agoraphobia and

adjustment disorder with depressed mood, but fails to present evidence of how this disorder

substantially limits one or more major life activities. Because Defendants agreed to his

requested accommodation for test-taking, and he nevertheless failed to take his tests and

failed his classes, he cannot show he is qualified with or without an accommodation. (MSJ

(Doc. 168)).

All of these are well grounded reasons for granting summary judgment for

Defendant.2

 Plaintiff has failed to file a Response. 

Under Rule 7.2(i) of this Court's Local Rules of Practice (LRCiv), a failure to file

a responsive pleading may be deemed consent to the motion and this Court may dispose of

the motion summarily.3

 “A motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply because

the opposing party violated a local rule.” Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722, 725 (9th Cir. 1995)

Case 4:11-cv-00840-DCB Document 172 Filed 09/30/14 Page 2 of 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 3

(citing Henry v. Gill Industries Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993). This is so because a

party may oppose a motion for summary judgment without offering affidavits or any other

materials in support of its opposition. “‘Summary judgment may be resisted and must be

denied on no other grounds than that the movant has failed to meet its burden of

demonstrating the absence of triable issues.’” Id. at 106 (quoting Henry, 983 F.2d at 950).

Here the Court has reviewed the Complaint and considered the merits of the motion

and the case. In light of these considerations, the Court finds that summarily granting the

motion is warranted, pursuant to Rule 7.2(i).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement (Doc. 168) is

summarily granted, pursuant to LRCiv. 7.2(i).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 29th day of September, 2014.

Case 4:11-cv-00840-DCB Document 172 Filed 09/30/14 Page 3 of 3