Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01046/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01046-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 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 - 06CV1046 WQH (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD WILSON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06CV1046 WQH (NLS)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

vs.

PFS, LLC dba McDONALD’S #23315; PFS

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION;

McDONALD’S CORPORATION,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

Pending before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment. (Docs. # 65, 66, 68). The

Court finds this matter suitable for submission on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to

Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 11, 2006, Plaintiff Ronald Wilson filed the Complaint in this matter, asserting a

federal Americans with Disability Act (ADA) claim as well as California state law claims against

Defendants PFS, LLC, PFS Management Co. Inc., and McDonald’s Corporation. (Doc. # 1).

Specifically, Plaintiff asserted that he encountered physical and intangible barriers at Defendants’

McDonald’s restaurant which denied Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy the restaurant in violation

of federal and state law. (Doc. # 1). On July 14, 2006, Defendants PFS, LLC and PFS Management

Case 3:06-cv-01046-WQH-BLM Document 80 Filed 08/22/07 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

- 2 - 06CV1046 WQH (NLS)

Co. Inc. moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a

claim. (Doc. # 7). On November 2, 2006, this Court denied the motion. (Doc. # 25).

On January 28, 2007, Defendants PFS, LLC and PFS Management Co. Inc. moved to dismiss

Plaintiff’s state law claims for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. # 35). On February 20, 2007, Defendant

McDonald’s Corporation joined the motion. (Doc. # 37). On May 31, 2007, the Court granted the

motion to dismiss and dismissed Plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice. (Doc. # 57).

On June 22, 2007, Defendant PFS, LLC and PFS Management Co. Inc. moved for summary

judgment on Plaintiff’s remaining federal ADA claim. (Docs. # 65, 66). On July 13, 2007, Plaintiff

filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. # 68). On July 16, 2007, Defendant McDonald’s

Corp. joined the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants PFS, LLC and PFS Management

Co. Inc. (Doc.# 70).

On August 6, 2007, Plaintiff conceded that there were no longer ADA violations at

Defendants’ restaurant. (Doc. # 78).

DISCUSSION & ORDER

The only claim remaining in this case is Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to the Americans with

Disabilities Act. Defendants PFS, LLC, PFS Management Co. Inc., and McDonald’s Corp. move for

summary judgment on the grounds that (1) none of the ADA violations alleged in the Complaint

currently exist at Defendants’ McDonald’s restaurant, and (2) Plaintiff lacks standing to bring suit.

Def. Mot. for Summ. J. at 14 (Doc. # 66). Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the grounds that

four ADA violations currently exist at Defendants’ restaurant. Pl. Mot. for Summ. J. at 9-15 (Doc.

# 68).

On August 6, 2007, Plaintiff submitted a reply brief in support of his motion for summary

judgment which indicated that there were no remaining ADA violations at Defendants’ restaurant.

(Doc. # 78). Specifically, Plaintiff’s reply brief states that:

As the sole relief available to Wilson under his remaining federal ADA claim is

injunctive relief, and as PFS has now (belatedly) corrected all the ADA violations on

the property, Wilson concedes that he no longer has Article III standing to pursue his

ADA claim.

(Doc. # 78 at 4).

/

Case 3:06-cv-01046-WQH-BLM Document 80 Filed 08/22/07 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 - 06CV1046 WQH (NLS)

/

After reviewing the briefing in this case, the Court concludes, and both parties agree, that there

are no remaining ADA violations at Defendants’ McDonald’s restaurant. Accordingly, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docs. # 65, 66) is GRANTED on the grounds

that none of the violations alleged by Plaintiff in the Complaint currently exist at Defendants’

McDonald’s restaurant. 

(2) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 68) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 22, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01046-WQH-BLM Document 80 Filed 08/22/07 Page 3 of 3