Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01975/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01975-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY McIVER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09CV1975-LAB (AJB)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

MOTION TO DISMISS CLAIMS AS

MOOT

vs.

PACIFIC CARMEL MOUNTAIN

HOLDINGS, LP,

Defendants.

After Plaintiff renounced all claims except those for injunctive relief under the ADA,

Defendant Sears Roebuck & Co. filed a notice contending that all remaining claims against

it were moot. Sears’ argument is that the facility in question had been closed, renovated, and

then reopened as a Sears Outlet store. Sears maintains that the barriers that allegedly

prevented Plaintiff from accessing and using the facilities no longer existed and Plaintiff’s

claims against Sears are therefore moot. Because Plaintiff seeks only injunctive relief and

changed conditions could moot all of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court construed Sears’ notice as

a motion to dismiss claims as moot, and ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his claims

shouldn’t be dismissed. (Docket no. 157.) 

Costco has also filed an ex parte motion to dismiss the claims against it as moot.

Although its facilities didn’t undergo the same type of renovation as Sears, Costco contends

- 1 - 09CV1975

Case 3:09-cv-01975-LAB-MDD Document 172 Filed 09/13/12 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

the alleged barriers have nevertheless been removed. After Costco filed its notice, the Court

issued an order requiring Plaintiff to file a response to its motion as well. (Docket no. 161.)

The Court’s Order to Show Cause made clear Plaintiff is required to show that the

Court has jurisdiction to entertain his claims, and required him to address Sears’ factual

representations as well as raising any legal arguments he had. (Docket no. 157, 1:23–25.)

The Court’s order following Costco’s motion made clear that the mootness question would

be considered before the scheduled trial would go forward. (Docket no. 161, 1:23–26.) 

Plaintiff filed a brief (Docket no. 162) arguing that Defendants are required to produce

evidence showing that his claims are moot, and that they haven’t done so. (Docket no. 162,

2:2–9, 2:15–25.) Plaintiff maintains that mootness is an affirmative defense that must be

pleaded in the answer or at least mentioned in the final pretrial order, and that it is unfair to

raise this defense on the eve of trial. Plaintiff also contends that Defendants bear a “heavy

burden” to show that his claims aren’t moot. In support of this, he cites Friends of the Earth,

Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), and cases relied on

by it or relying on it. 

Laidlaw, however, dealt with a situation where the only possible basis for mootness

was the defendant’s voluntary cessation of the allegedly offending practice. 528 U.S. at 189

(“The only conceivable basis for a finding of mootness in this case is Laidlaw's voluntary

conduct . . . .”) But most of the barriers identified in the amended complaint and final pretrial

order didn’t consist of voluntary practices that could be temporarily halted, only to be

restarted later. Rather, the barriers are primarily structural. If, as Sears and Costco

represent, these have been altered through renovation to the physical plant, or otherwise,

there is no reasonable likelihood those changes will be undone. See Chapman v. Pier 1

Imports (U.S.) Inc., ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2012 WL 2500932, slip op. at *6 (E.D.Cal., June

27, 2012) (distinguishing "voluntary cessation" case from cases where structural changes

rendered injunctive relief moot).

The final pretrial order identifies the alleged barriers at Sears as consisting of

inappropriate handles at entrance doors, lack of an International Symbol of Accessibility

- 2 - 09CV1975

Case 3:09-cv-01975-LAB-MDD Document 172 Filed 09/13/12 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

(ISA) at the main entrance, unwrapped pipes beneath the sinks, a waste receptacle under

the sink that protrudes into clear knee space, a waste receptacle obstructing use of the

paper towel dispenser, a baby changing station that protrudes into the clear floor space

needed to access lavatories, a paper towel dispenser that is mounted both too high and too

close to the restroom exit door. (Final Pretrial Orderat 6:20–7:11.) The same order identifies

the alleged barriers at Costco as being the lack of an adequate painted markings on and

around disabled parking spaces, inadequate signs posted at disabled parking spaces

(including van parking spaces), and access aisles adjacent to the van accessible parking

spaces that are too narrow. (Id. at 7:12–24.) Of these, only the waste receptacle’s position

is arguably practice or policy that can be ceased, and then only if the receptacle is movable

and Sears’ employees place it (or allow it to remain) where it blocks Plaintiff’s use of the

facilities, and if Plaintiff can’t easily move it out of the way. If the others have been fixed, it

would be by a permanent physical change to the facility, which Defendants aren’t likely to

undo.

As the Court’s earlier orders pointed out, mootness is jurisdictional, and the Court is

required to raise and consider this issue, sua sponte if necessary. See American Civil

Liberties Union of Nevada v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1062 (9 Cir. 2012). Mootness at any th

stage of litigation requires dismissal, because the Court no longer has the power to

adjudicate the case. Id. (“When the possibility of injury to the plaintiffs ceases, the case is

rendered moot and we lack jurisdiction to decide it.”) Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is

never waived, and may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC,

487 F.3d 1193, 1200 (9 Cir. 2007). The Court is not free to ignore possible defects in its th

jurisdiction, but is required to confirm its jurisdiction before proceeding further. Id. This

means the Court must address mootness before allowing the claims to proceed to trial on

the merits. See Frankl v. HTH Corp., 650 F.3d 1334, 1342 (9 Cir. 2012) (addressing th

mootness issue before proceeding to address substantive issues). 

The mootness doctrine is more flexible than other jurisdictional requirements, and

claims are not moot when any effective relief may be granted. Karuk Tribe of Calif. v. U.S.

- 3 - 09CV1975

Case 3:09-cv-01975-LAB-MDD Document 172 Filed 09/13/12 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

Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006, 1017 (9 Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Here, however, Plaintiff

th

is only seeking injunctive relief requiring the remediation of barriers. If remediation has

already taken place and there is no longer any need for the Court to order what has already

happened, the case has become moot. See id.

While the Court’s orders so far have focused on mootness, the Court must also be

mindful of other jurisdictional issues, such as standing. See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports

(U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 947–48 (9 Cir. 2011) (en banc) (to show standing, ADA plaintiff

th

must show real and immediate threat of injury from existing barriers, and a likelihood injury

will be repeated if relief is not granted). The parties should also remember that this case is

on the eve of trial. Discovery has already been completed, the final pretrial order issued, and

new claims or affirmative defenses will not be allowed at this stage. If, as Defendants

represent, the conditions identified in the final pretrial order have been removed so that they

are no longer barriers for Plaintiff, the case is moot. The Court must also bear in mind the

standards for issuing injunctive relief. Because it is the only type of relief being sought, if

injunctive relief would be unavailable, the case would be moot for that reason as well. See

Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S.Ct. 2743, 2756 (2010) (setting forth standards

for issuance of injunction).

The Court’s orders concerning Sears’ and Costco’s motions said the Court would set

a hearing if necessary. Having reviewed the briefing, the Court has determined that some

evidence is needed before a determination can be made, and an evidentiary hearing should

be held. The parties are therefore ORDERED to appear for an evidentiary hearing solely on

the issue of whether the barriers have been corrected. Defendants should present

competent evidence to substantiate their representations to the Court that all barriers have

been removed. Plaintiff may present rebuttal evidence showing that barriers have not been

corrected. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. and each

side will have one hour to present its evidence. No later than Friday, September 21, each

side should file a notice, not longer than three pages, identifying the evidence it intends to

present. The Court will rule on Defendants’ motions after the hearing. The parties are

- 4 - 09CV1975

Case 3:09-cv-01975-LAB-MDD Document 172 Filed 09/13/12 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

reminded that the hearing is an evidentiary hearing in support of the Court’s examination of

its own jurisdiction, not oral argument or a trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 12, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 5 - 09CV1975

Case 3:09-cv-01975-LAB-MDD Document 172 Filed 09/13/12 Page 5 of 5