Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01393/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01393-0/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT N. JOHNSON,

 

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM N. LOUIE,

individually and as a

Co-Trustee of the 1999

Louie Family Trust;

SUSAN T. LOUIE,

individually and as a

Co-Trustee of the 1999

Louie Family Trust;

SUSAN E. GOULD,

individually and dba

CONROY’S FLOWERS 

 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 07-CV-01393 LEW-GGH

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL

NOTICE

On August 29, 2007, Defendant Susan E. Gould/dba

Conroy’s Flowers filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

Complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(B). Defendant Gould also alleges that 

res judicata precludes the filing of the underlying

action. 

Case 2:07-cv-01393-LEW-GGH Document 20 Filed 10/03/07 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 2

On September 12, 2007, Defendants William N. Louie

and Susan T. Louie filed a Joinder to Gould’s Motion to

Dismiss and a Motion for Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(B). 

On September 21, 2007, Plaintiff Opposed the Motion

to Dismiss alleging that the original Complaint does

properly state a claim for relief and that res judicata

is inapplicable because the prior settlement involved a

different property. 

This matter was originally set for hearing on

October 12, 2007, however, having considered the

pleadings filed in this matter, the Court hereby ORDERS

as follows:

As an initial matter, Defendant Gould’s Request for

Judicial Notice is GRANTED. Each of the documents

Defendant request the Court take judicial notice of are

publically filed documents and therefore are all

capable of accurate and ready determination by resort

to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be

questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(d). 

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are DENIED. Viewing

the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light

most favorable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has adequately

Case 2:07-cv-01393-LEW-GGH Document 20 Filed 10/03/07 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 2

stated a claim for relief. 

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he both

attempted and visited the 4900 Madison Property and

found it in violation of the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990. Moreover, Plaintiff does not

actually need to have visited the location, but merely

been deterred from patronizing based on the lack of

accommodations. Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods Inc.,

293 F.3d 1133, 1138 (9th Cir. 2002.) 

Plaintiff’s claims are also not barred by the

principal of res judicata. Collateral estoppel is

appropriate when "(1) there was a full and fair

opportunity to litigate the issue in the previous

action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in that

action; (3) the issue was lost as a result of a final

judgment in that action; and (4) the person against

whom collateral estoppel is asserted in the present

action was a party or in privity with a party in the

previous action." In re Palmer, 207 F.3d 566, 568 (9th

Cir. 2000). 

A settlement may meet the "fully litigated"

requirement where "it is clear that the parties

intended the stipulation of settlement and judgment

entered thereon to adjudicate once and for all the

Case 2:07-cv-01393-LEW-GGH Document 20 Filed 10/03/07 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 3

issues raised in that action." Green v.

Ancora-Citronelle Corp., 577 F.2d 1380, 1383 (9th Cir.

1978).

This case, however, is not analogous to Green,

where the Plaintiff merely re-filed the identical

claims in federal court that had previously been

settled in state court. Here, when viewed in the light

most favorable to Plaintiff, the settlement agreement

does not appear to apply directly to the current

allegations surrounding the 4900 Madison property. 

Indeed, the settlement agreement states that the

Lawsuit to be settled “alleges among other things,

[that Defendants own a property] where an establishment

called ‘Conroy’s Flowers’ located in a retail center at

2300 Arden Way, Sacramento, CA (hereafter “the

Establishment”).” (Settlement at 1.) All other

references pertain only the “Establishment” which does

not include to the 4900 Madison property. 

Moreover, each of the settlement terms regarding

repairing the property surround the 2300 Arden

property. The only reference to the 4900 Madison

property is found in the factual background of the

prior complaint. The remaining allegations surround

the 2300 Arden property. 

Case 2:07-cv-01393-LEW-GGH Document 20 Filed 10/03/07 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 4

Finally, Plaintiff alleged visits to the Madison

property in the instant complaint, were made after the

settlement of the prior action. (Compl. at 3.) 

Therefore, the parties did not necessarily intend

for the settlement to include claims regarding the 4900

Madison property. Moreover, when viewed in the light

most favorable to Plaintiff, the allegations in the

instant Complaint could not have been included in the

settlement because the incident took place after the

settlement of the prior litigation. 

Based on the above analysis, Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss is DENIED. 

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

 HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW

 Senior, U.S. District Court Judge

DATED: October 2, 2007

Case 2:07-cv-01393-LEW-GGH Document 20 Filed 10/03/07 Page 5 of 5