Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02218/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02218-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATHLEEN CHANDLER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ARIZONA PARTNERS RETAIL

INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, an

Arizona Limited Liability

Company, Does 1 to 20,

Defendants. 

CIV-S-04-2218 DFL/JFM

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION 

AND ORDER

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the court’s March 18,

2005 order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss. A motion for

reconsideration will not be granted, absent exceptional

circumstances, unless a party provides newly discovered evidence,

the court committed clear error, or there is an intervening

change of law. School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Plaintiff requests reconsideration on the basis of clear

error. The request is DENIED. To date, plaintiff has failed to

cite a single California Building Code section that could raise a

Case 2:04-cv-02218-DFL -JFM Document 23 Filed 05/09/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

presumption of negligence in this case. Nor does the court’s

order prevent plaintiff from suing to recover for her injuries. 

Plaintiff’s general negligence claim remains in this action and

is the proper vehicle through which she may present her case. 

Finally, the court did not find that plaintiff’s negligence per

se claim is “trumped” by the Americans with Disabilities Act;

this claim was dismissed because plaintiff cannot raise a

presumption of negligence through defendant’s alleged violation

of disability access building codes. (3/18/2005 Order at 4.) 

Plaintiff’s motion to amend her negligence per se claim to

add citations to various California Building Code sections and

statutes is also DENIED. The proffered code sections and

statutes do not provide a valid basis for a negligence per se

claim here. Therefore, amendment would be futile. DeSoto v.

Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Finally, plaintiff requests certification for an

interlocutory appeal of the court’s order. This motion is also

DENIED. The order does not involve questions of law as to which

there is substantial ground for difference of opinion. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292(b). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/9/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02218-DFL -JFM Document 23 Filed 05/09/05 Page 2 of 2