Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03022/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-03022-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRIS KOHLER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv3022 JM(WMc)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT 

vs.

CSK AUTO, INC. dba O’REILLY

AUTO PARTS #2941,

Defendant.

Following remand from the Ninth Circuit, and upon conclusion of an appeal in

a related case, Kohler v. Midway Land, LLC, 3:12CV0148 JM(WMC) (S. D. Cal.) 

(hereinafter “Kohler I”), the court grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment

(Ct. Dkt. 19) on the only remaining issue in this case: the slope of the Midway Center

parking lot (disabled parking space and access aisles).1

 

The sole remaining issue on remand is whether the parking space and access

aisles near the O’Reilly store were ADA compliant. Kohler I answered that question. 

Following a bench trial in Kohler I, the court concluded in its Statement of Decision

that “the great weight of credible evidence clearly establishes that the slopes of the

disabled parking space and access aisle in question do not exceed 1:48, or 2.083%, and

therefore, comply with relevant ADA requirements.” (Ct. Dkt. 102 at 4:9-11). 

1

 The court incorporates and takes judicial notice of the record in this case

(“Kohler II”) and in Kohler I.

- 1 - 12cv3022

Case 3:12-cv-03022-JM-JLB Document 49 Filed 12/20/16 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

Here, the doctrine of issue preclusion prevents Plaintiff from relitigating the slope

issue of the parking space and access aisles. Issue preclusion applies when: “first, the

issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be identical to that decided in a

former proceeding. Second, this issue must have been actually litigated in the former

proceeding. Third, it must have been necessarily decided in the former proceeding.

Fourth, the decision in the former proceeding must be final and on the merits. Finally,

the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the

party to the former proceeding.” Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 335, 341 (1990);

Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 926 (9th Cir. 1996). 

The evidentiary record demonstrates that Plaintiff parked in a Midway Center

disabled parking space near O’Reilly’s store and not far from Aaron Brothers. The

evidentiary record in Kohler I demonstrated that the disability parking space and access

aisles were ADA compliant. (Ct. Dkt. 102 at 4:9-11). The slope issue in this case is

identical to an issue actually litigated in Kohler I, the issue was decided in favor of

ADA compliance, the decision in Kohler I is now final (Plaintiff abandoned the appeal

in Kohler I), and Plaintiff is the same party in both actions. As all elements are

satisfied, the court grants summary judgment in favor of O’Reilly and against Plaintiff.

Following a status hearing in this case, Plaintiff’s counsel declares that he

measured the slope of the disabled parking space and concluded that the parking space

was not ADA compliant because the slope was 3.1% to 3.4%. (Mehton Decl. ¶7). The

court rejects this argument because Mr. Mehton’s observations contradict the findings

in Kohler I that the parking space is ADA complaint (and Plaintiff’s earlier factual

assertions that the slopes were 2.7%, 3.2%, and 3.1%). (Ct. Dkt. 102 at 3:1). 

/ / /

/ / / 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

- 2 - 12cv3022

Case 3:12-cv-03022-JM-JLB Document 49 Filed 12/20/16 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

In sum, the court grants summary judgment in favor of O’Reilly and against

Plaintiff. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of O’Reilly and

against Plaintiff Kohler.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 20, 2016

 

JEFFREY T. MILLER

United States District Judge

cc: All parties

- 3 - 12cv3022

Case 3:12-cv-03022-JM-JLB Document 49 Filed 12/20/16 Page 3 of 3