Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00397/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00397-11/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHERIE WHITE, )

) 02:04-cv-0397-GEB-KJM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

CINEMARK USA, INC. dba CINEMARK )

MOVIES 8, )

)

Defendant. )

)

Defendant Cinemark (“Cinemark”) asserts in its Trial Brief

filed August 28, 2006, that Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue

architectural barrier claims that she did not personally experience or

know about at the time she filed her Complaint. (Def.’s Trial Brief

at 14-20.) However, Plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that she

“visited the Movie Theater and actually encountered architectural

barriers that denied him [sic] full access . . . .” (Pl.’s Compl.

¶ 4.) In light of this allegation, Cinemark has not shown that its

standing challenge should be decided at this pre-trial stage of the

proceeding. 

Cinemark also asserts in its Trial Brief that “Plaintiff

should . . . be barred from basing her claims at trial upon alleged

accessibility violations at the Theater that are not identified in

[her] Complaint, her letter to Cinemark, or [her] Site Inspection

Case 2:04-cv-00397-GEB -CMK Document 169 Filed 08/31/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Report” because Cinemark never received adequate notice of any alleged

violations not contained in these documents. (Def.’s Trial Brief

at 12.) A “[p]laintiff may only go forward on alleged violations that

are fairly identified in the complaint and any amendments to the

complaint[;] [o]therwise the complaint does not give adequate notice

to defendant . . . of the[] barriers that [s]he has encountered and

for which [s]he claims injury and seeks redress.” Wilson v. Norbreck,

LLC, 2005 WL 3439714, *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2005); see also Pickern

v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 2061178, at *4 (9th

Cir. July 26, 2006). 

In her Complaint, Plaintiff did not identify the specific

accessibility violations she encountered at the Theater; however, she

notified Cinemark in a letter and in a Site Inspection Report of the

alleged violations for which she claims injury. (See Def.’s Trial

Brief at 12.) Cinemark, in the Joint Pretrial Statement, agreed that

these documents “identified the alleged violations as to which

Plaintiff seeks relief,” (Joint Pretrial Statement, filed Aug. 15,

2005, at 6-7, 3-4), and as a result, the Final Pretrial Order

preserved these alleged violations for trial, (Final Pretrial Order,

filed Aug. 25, 2006, at 4). 

Parties can agree to an amendment of the complaint in a

joint pretrial statement, and when such an amendment is included in “a

pretrial order [this] has the effect of amending the [Complaint].” 

Acorn v. City of Phoenix, 798 F.2d 1260, 1263 (9th Cir. 1986). Since

Cinemark effectively agreed to amend the Complaint to include the

violations identified in the letter and the Site Inspection Report,

these alleged violations have been properly preserved for trial.

However, since Defendant never agreed to amend the Complaint to

Case 2:04-cv-00397-GEB -CMK Document 169 Filed 08/31/06 Page 2 of 5
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

Although Cinemark argued in the Joint Pretrial Statement that 1

“Plaintiff was barred from basing her claims at trial upon alleged

accessibility violations at the Theater that were not identified in

[her] Complaint or [her] Preliminary Site Inspection,” (Joint Pretrial

Statement, filed Aug. 15, 2005, at 19), the Final Pretrial Order

inadvertently failed to preserve this argument for trial. Cinemark

filed objections to the Final Pretrial Order, in which it requested that

the Final Pretrial Order be amended to reflect its arguments in the

Joint Pretrial Statement regarding the unplead allegations, (Def.’s

Objections, filed Aug. 30, 2005, at 2), but the objection was overruled

in the SFPO (SFPO at 3). Cinemark’s objection is reconsidered sua

sponte. 

3

include any alleged violations not identified in these documents,

(Joint Pretrial Statement, filed Aug. 15, 2005, at 6-7, 19), it

appears Defendants never received adequate notice of the alleged

violations that are identified as claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 19, 20, 23,

26, 27, 28 and 33 in the Supplement to the Final Pretrial Order filed

November 23, 2005, (“SFPO”). 

1

In addition, Cinemark argues “the only appropriate ADA

claims remaining to be tried in this case relate to certain alleged

barriers under the ADA that are addressed in the Advanced Design

Consultants’ Improvement Plan” because an Order filed August 4, 2005,

“grant[ed] summary judgment to [Cinemark] . . . on [all] alleged

violations of the ADA, except for th[e] alleged . . . violations

addressed in Advanced Design Consultants’ Improvement Plan.” (Def.’s

Trial Brief at 8-9.) Cinemark appears correct. White v. Cinemark USA

Inc., 2005 WL 1865495, *7 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2005). Cinemark asserts 

that claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 18 and 19 in the SFPO are based on the

California Building Code, and that claims 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24, 25,

26 and 28 in the SFPO also are not based on the Advanced Design

Consultants’ Improvement Plan. (Def.’s Trial Brief at 7-9.) 

Case 2:04-cv-00397-GEB -CMK Document 169 Filed 08/31/06 Page 3 of 5
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

Therefore, unless Plaintiff shows the incorrectness of

Cinemark’s position on claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,

19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 33 in a responding trial brief,

these claims will be dismissed before trial. Plaintiff shall file her

responding trial brief no later than 12:00 p.m. on September 6, 2006;

if Plaintiff does not file a responsive brief within the time period

prescribed, it will be assumed that she does not dispute Cinemark’s

position.

Finally, the SFPO overruled some of the objections Cinemark

filed to the Final Pretrial Order on August 30, 2006; that ruling is

reconsidered sua sponte. (See SFPO at 3.) Reconsideration of those

objections reveals some of the affirmative defenses Cinemark asserted

in the Joint Pretrial Statement should have been preserved for trial

in the SFPO. Therefore, the following affirmative defenses are

preserved for trial: 

1. Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred because they

are not readily achievable.

2. Plaintiff lacks standing to assert some or all of her

claims.

3. Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages.

4. Some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are moot.

5. Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney fees because Cinemark

acted in good faith. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00397-GEB -CMK Document 169 Filed 08/31/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

6. Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney fees because Plaintiff

has unclean hands. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 31, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00397-GEB -CMK Document 169 Filed 08/31/06 Page 5 of 5