Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00701/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00701-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

GARY ERVIN,

No. 2:05-cv-0701-MCE-DAD-PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE;

ROBERT W. BRANNEN; JAMES S.

McWHORTER, DEBORAH A. CORRELL

and DOES 1 to 10,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

By Order dated November 9, 2005, this Court adopted the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations and dismissed, 

with prejudice, Plaintiff’s federal claim (premised on

Defendants’ alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with

Disabilities Act) for failure to state a viable claim under

//

Case 2:05-cv-00701-MCE -DAD Document 48 Filed 01/23/06 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

All further references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the 1

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court further 1

adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that, having

disposed of the federal claim, Plaintiff’s remaining state law

claims should also be dismissed, without prejudice. Judgment was

accordingly entered in favor of Defendants on November 9, 2005

and the case was closed.

Plaintiff has now filed three separate post-judgment motions

seeking to amend and/or vacate that judgment. First, he asks the

Court to amend its findings under Rule 52(b) to address whether

the “anti-subterfuge provisions” of 42 U.S.C. § 12201(c) in fact

apply to the instant matter. Secondly, Plaintiff similarly

alleges that the judgment against him is void under Rule 60(b)

for the same reason. Finally, Plaintiff moves for rehearing

under Rule 59, which provides that a new trial may be granted

under specified circumstances.

Plaintiff’s stated basis for the Rule 52(b) and 60(b)

motions is misplaced. 42 U.S.C. § 12201(c), on its face, applies

to insurance plans providing health related benefits (like

policies of health, life or disability insurance), and the risks

that may be considered in underwriting and/or administering such

plans. The “anti-subterfuge provisions” relied upon by Plaintiff

amount simply to a recognition that carriers providing healthrelated benefits cannot rely upon their ability to assess health

risks as an excuse or “subterfuge” to otherwise evade the

purposes of Title I of the ADA, which governs disability

employment rights, and Title III, dealing with disabled access to

Case 2:05-cv-00701-MCE -DAD Document 48 Filed 01/23/06 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

Plaintiff does not allege that he is subject to Title I of 2

the ADA, dealing with access of disabled persons to employment,

since it is undisputed that he was neither an employee or

prospective employee of Defendants at any time germane to this

action.

Plaintiff has submitted identical Requests for Judicial 3

Notice for both his Rule 52(b) and 60(b) motions, as well as for

(continued...)

3

public accommodations.

Section 12201(c) has nothing to do with Farmers’ decision to

settle a liability claim against a policy of automobile liability

insurance like that issued by Farmers to Plaintiff herein. As

discussed at length in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations, the fact that an insurance carrier writes

policies does not transform the carrier into a “place of public

accommodation” subject to Title III. (Findings and 2

Recommendations, pp. 6-8, see Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film

Corp., 198 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9 Cir. 2000)). Although such a th

carrier could of course be subject to the strictures of the ADA,

and the anti-subterfuge provisions of § 12201(c), in its

employment practices or the accessibility of its claims offices

to the public, the mere issuance of a policy does not constitute

a public accommodation; instead, an “actual physical place” is

required. Id. at 1114. Here, Plaintiff has not alleged, and

cannot allege under the circumstances of this case, that any such

physical place is present. In the absence of that physical

place, the anti-subterfuge provisions have no application.

Plaintiff’s motions under Rules 52(b) and 60(b) are

accordingly DENIED because Plaintiff’s reliance on 42 U.S.C. §

12201(c) in making those motions is wrong. Plaintiff’s third 3

Case 2:05-cv-00701-MCE -DAD Document 48 Filed 01/23/06 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

(...continued) 3

his Rule 59 motion, under Federal Rule of Evidence 201. Those

requests essentially fall into two categories. The first

pertains to documents within the Court’s own file in this matter

which need not be judicially noticed; the second appears to

relate to various state court proceedings which allegedly pertain

to the undersigned. Aside from the fact that Plaintiff has

failed to attach any of the documents for which judicial notice

is sought in that regard to his papers, the proceedings in

question have absolutely no relevance to disposition of any of

the motions presently before this Court under any circumstance. 

Plaintiff’s Requests for Judicial Notice are accordingly denied.

The Court recognizes that Plaintiff, in his Rule 59 motion, 4

alleges that the undersigned demonstrated “racial bias and

prejudice” against the Plaintiff in prior state court

proceedings. While the Court need not even address those

allegations given the fact that Plaintiff cannot make a viable

Rule 59 motion, suffice it to say that Plaintiff’s race was never

an issue in this matter in any event. Moreover, the undersigned

has no recollection of either Plaintiff or any prior case in

which Plaintiff was involved.

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 5

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h).

4

and final motion, under Rule 59, fails on its face since that

Rule pertains to requests for a new trial, and here the matter

was dismissed prior to any trial whatsoever. Plaintiff’s Rule 59

motion must hence also be DENIED. 4 5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 20, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00701-MCE -DAD Document 48 Filed 01/23/06 Page 4 of 4