Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01660/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01660-8/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 05cv1660 J (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURIZIO ANTONINETTI,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05cv1660 J (WMc)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO AMEND THE

AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Maurizio Antoninetti’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Amend the

Amended Pretrial Order. [Doc. No. 158.] For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s Motion. 

Background

On June 14, 2007, the Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part the

Parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment. [Doc. No. 129.] The bulk of the Order addressed

Plaintiff’s claim that the food-preparation counters at Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill’s

(“Defendant”) restaurants were too high and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act

(“ADA”). (See Order on Mots. for Summ. J. at 7.) The Court found that the food-preparation

counters were sales and service counters and were therefore governed by ADA Accessibility

Guideline (“ADAAG”) § 7.2. (Id. at 13.) The Court found that Defendant had not provided a

Case 3:05-cv-01660-BTM-WMC Document 173 Filed 10/04/07 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

2 05cv1660 J (WMc)

portion of the food-preparation counter that complied with the ADA, nor had Defendant

provided an ADA-compliant auxiliary counter. (Id. at 15-16.) However, the Court found that

there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant had provided “equivalent

facilitation” to customers in wheelchairs within the meaning of ADAAG § 7.2(2)(iii). (Id. at

17.) Under Defendant’s Customers with Disabilities Policy (“Policy”), employees were

instructed to implement a variety of accommodations to assist customers with disabilities. (Id.) 

The Court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Policy provided

substantially equivalent access to Defendant’s restaurants. (Id.) Accordingly, the Court denied

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s claims that the food-preparation

counters violated the ADA. 

On July 16, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s summary

judgment order. [Doc. No. 135.] Plaintiff sought reconsideration on several grounds, including:

(1) Defendant’s Policy cannot provide equivalent facilitation because it does not constitute a

design or technology; and (2) the Court should have utilized the ADA’s general antidiscrimination policies in ruling on the motions for summary judgment. (Pl.’s Mot. for Recons.

at 5.) On August 23, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, finding that

Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the Court committed clear legal error, Plaintiff could not

raise arguments in the motion for reconsideration that had not been raised in his summary

judgment papers, and Plaintiff could not relitigate issues that had already been resolved by the

Court in its summary judgment order. [See Doc. No. 147.] 

On September 4, 2007, the parties submitted a proposed pretrial order. [Doc. No. 149.] 

On September 10, 2007, the final pretrial conference was held. [Doc. No. 153.] At the pretrial

conference, the Court struck several portions of the pretrial order because the Court had already

addressed them in the order on the parties’ motions for summary judgment and the order on the

parties’ motions for reconsideration. Specifically, the Court struck all issues of fact and law

relating to the seating at Defendants’ restaurants because, as noted in the order on the motions

for summary judgment, Plaintiff failed to raise any claims regarding seating in his Complaint or

any amendment thereto. (Order on Mots. for Summ. J. at 24.) The Court struck all issues of law

Case 3:05-cv-01660-BTM-WMC Document 173 Filed 10/04/07 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

3 05cv1660 J (WMc)

relating to whether Defendant’s policy could constitute an equivalent facilitation because this

issue was addressed in the Court’s order on the motions for summary judgment and the order on

the motions for reconsideration. (Order on Mots. for Summ. J. at 17; Order on Mots. for

Recons. at 6.) The Court struck all issues of law relating to the general antidiscrimination

provisions of the ADA because the Court found in its order on the motions for summary

judgment that the specific provisions of the ADAAG control over the general provisions of the

ADA. (Order on Mots. for Summ. J. at 18-19). 

On September 24, 2007, the parties filed an Amended Pretrial Order. [Doc. No. 157.] In

compliance with the Court’s rulings at the pretrial conference, the amended pretrial order

omitted all issues of fact and law that had been previously resolved by the Court in its orders on

the motions for summary judgment and motions for reconsideration. On September 24, 2007,

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Amend the Amended Pretrial Order. [Doc. No. 158.]

Legal Standard 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(e) sets forth the standard for modification of a final

pretrial order. Under the rule, a pretrial order may be modified “only to prevent manifest

injustice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e). The purpose of the pretrial order is “to guide the course of the

litigation,” and “once formulated, [it] should not be changed lightly.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e),

Advisory Committee Note (citing Clark v. Pa. R.R. Co., 328 F.2d 591 (2d Cir. 1964)). It is the

moving party’s burden to show that a manifest injustice would result if the pretrial order is not

modified. Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 1998)

Discussion

 Plaintiff seeks to modify the Amended Pretrial Order by reinstating several provisions of

Proposed Pretrial Order that the Court struck at the pretrial conference. Specifically, Plaintiff

seeks to amend the Amended Pretrial Order to include the following legal issues:

Legal Issue No. 1. Whether “other designs and technologies”, as referenced in the

definition of “equivalent facilitation” at ADAAG Sec. 2.2, includes policies,

practices and procedures, such as Defendant’s Policy.

Legal Issue No. 2. Whether Plaintiff was required to specifically identify seating

areas in his Complaint, in order to recover damages relating to inaccessible seating

areas.

Case 3:05-cv-01660-BTM-WMC Document 173 Filed 10/04/07 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

4 05cv1660 J (WMc)

Legal Issue No. 3. Whether providing people in wheelchairs the opportunity to see

food ingredients by placing food in sample cups, or by lifting tongfuls or handfuls

of food, and/or the opportunity to watch the assembly of one’s entree in the dining

area at an adjacent table, is full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,

facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations, contemplated by 42 U.S.C.

Sec. 12182.

Legal Issue No. 4. Whether providing people in wheelchairs the opportunity to see

food ingredients by placing food in sample cups, or by lifting tongfuls or handfuls

of food, and/or the opportunity to watch the assembly of one’s entree in the dining

area at an adjacent table, violates 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12182 because the benefit

provided is a “separate” benefit.

(Mot. to Amend at 1-2.)

The Court must examine whether any manifest injustice would result if the pretrial order

is not modified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e). Plaintiff presents no new facts or law in support of

his Motion. Rather, Plaintiff essentially rehashes the arguments presented in his Motion for

Summary Judgment and Motion for Reconsideration. All four of the legal issues that Plaintiff

seeks to add to the Amended Pretrial Order have already been addressed by the Court in the

order on the motions for summary judgment, the order on the motions for reconsideration, and in

the rulings at the final pretrial conference. Legal Issue No.1 was addressed in the orders on the

motions for summary judgment and the motions for reconsideration. (Order on Mots. for Summ.

J. at 16-17; Order on Mots. for Recons. at 6.) Legal Issue No. 2 was addressed in the order on

the motions for summary judgment. (Order on Mots. for Summ. J. at 24.) Legal Issue No. 3 and

Legal Issue No. 4 were also addressed in the orders on the motions for summary judgment. 

(Id. at 18-19.) Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that circumstances have changed such

that a manifest injustice would result if the Amended Pretrial Order is not modified, the Court

DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Amended Pretrial Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 4, 2007

HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

United States District Judge

cc: Magistrate Judge McCurine 

 All Counsel of Record

Case 3:05-cv-01660-BTM-WMC Document 173 Filed 10/04/07 Page 4 of 4