Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00397/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00397-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHERIE WHITE, )

) 02:04-cv-397-GEB-CMK

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

) 

CINEMARK USA, INC., dba )

CINEMARK MOVIES 8, )

)

Defendant. )

)

Defendants object to the Supplement to the Final Pretrial

Order (“SFPO”) issued November 23, 2006, arguing several of

Plaintiff’s injunctive relief claims under the Americans with

Disabilities Act and the Unruh Act should be stricken from the SFPO

and should not be preserved for trial. (Defs.’ Objections at 1-2.) 

First, Defendants correctly note that an Order filed

August 4, 2005, (“August 4 Order”) determined “Plaintiff lacked

standing to claim that the path from the accessible parking spaces

crosses a route that vehicles travel without providing detectable

warnings.” (August 4 Order at 11, n.7.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s

injunctive relief claim that seeks the “[i]nstall[ation] of detectable

warning signs [in] the vehicular areas that cross with the pedestrian

walkways” is stricken from the SFPO and is not preserved for trial. 

(SFPO at 4, lines 13-14.) 

Case 2:04-cv-00397-GEB -CMK Document 163 Filed 08/25/06 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

27

28 The parties should address this matter in their trial 1

briefs and proposed findings and conclusions. 

2

Defendants also correctly note the August 4 Order granted

their motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s injunctive

relief claims that were not based on the Advanced Design Consultants’

Accessability Improvements Plan (“ADCAI”). (August 4 Order at 16.) 

Defendants argue all of Plaintiff’s injunctive relief claims that

“allege violations of the [California Building Code]” and that “are

not addressed in the [ADCAI]” should be stricken from the SFPO. 

(Defs.’ Objections at 1-2.) However, since Defendants have not

sufficiently demonstrated the specific claims they seek to have

stricken are based on guidelines other than the ADCAI, their requested

relief cannot be granted at this time.1

Finally, Defendants argue an Order filed May 5, 2004,

(“May 5 Order”) “limited the [injunctive relief claims] at issue” to

those based on architectural barriers identified in a Site Inspection

Report attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Defs.’ Objections at 2.) 

However, the May 5 Order, which addressed Defendants’ motion for a

more definite statement, only determined Defendants had enough

information from the Complaint and the Site Inspection Report “to

frame a responsive pleading.” (May 5 Order at 2.) Consequently,

Defendants’ argument that the May 5 Order affected the “scope” of this

litigation is without merit. (Defs.’ Objections at 2.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 24, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00397-GEB -CMK Document 163 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 of 2