2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-16-2013

Maryann Cottrell v. Zagami, LLC

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-1564

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Maryann Cottrell v. Zagami, LLC" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 218.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/218
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-1564

_____________

MARYANN COTTRELL; RICHARD HOLLAND

v.

ZAGAMI, LLC, 

d/b/a The Landmark Americana Tap and Grill,

d/b/a Landmark Liquors, 

d/b/a The Spot

MARYANN COTTRELL,

 Appellant 

__________

No. 12-1565

__________

MARYANN COTTRELL; RICHARD HOLLAND

v.

ZAGAMI, LLC,

d/b/a Landmark Americana Tap and Grill,

d/b/a Landmark Liquors,

d/b/a The Spot

RICHARD HOLLAND,

 Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil Action No. D.N.J. Civ. No. 08-cv-03340)

District Judge: Honorable Joseph E. Irenas

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
2

September 11, 2013

Before: SMITH, CHAGARES and SHWARTZ, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : September 16, 2013)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Maryann Cottrell and Richard Holland each appeal from an order of the United 

States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which granted summary judgment for 

the Defendant in their lawsuit that raised claims of retaliation under the Americans with 

Disability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), and the New Jersey Law Against 

Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (“NJLAD”). We will affirm the District Court’s 

judgment.

We review a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo, 

applying the same test that the district court is to use. Chambers ex rel. Chambers v. Sch.

Dist. of Phila., 587 F.3d 176, 181 (3d Cir. 2009). We will affirm a district court’s 

judgment if, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving 

party, “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Dilworth v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 418 

F.3d 345, 349 (3d Cir. 2005). To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the 

ADA, Cottrell and Holland were required to show: (1) they engaged in a statutorily 

protected expression; (2) they suffered an adverse action; and (3) the adverse reaction 
3

was causally related to the protected expression. Higdon v. Jackson, 393 F.3d 1211, 

1219 (11th Cir. 2004); Fogleman v. Mercy Hosp., Inc., 283 F.3d 561, 567-68 (3d Cir. 

2002). We agree with the District Court that Cottrell and Holland failed to establish a 

prima facie case of retaliation.

Cottrell and Holland claimed in their amended complaint that defendant Zagami, 

LLC, which owns three related businesses (“Landmark”), had retaliated against them for 

activity protected by the ADA, specifically, they alleged that in retaliation for their 

complaints about unauthorized use of handicap-accessible parking spots at Landmark, 

Landmark issued letters banning them from entering Landmark’s property.

1

 Cottrell 

engaged in protected activity when she filed citizen’s complaints against patrons of 

Landmark for handicapped parking violations in October and November of 2005, and 

when she filed another such complaint against Landmark and a beer distributor on 

January 27, 2006.2

 We agree that being banned from Landmark properties suffices, at 

least at the stage of the prima facie case, to establish an adverse action. But Cottrell and 

Holland did not establish a prima facie case of causation. The letter banning Cottrell 

from Landmark, citing her “prior actions . . . disruptive of the regular and essential 

operations” of the business, is dated July 6, 2006, over five months after any parking 

 1 The complaint also raised claims under state law, but because the same showings are required 

to establish a retaliation claim under both the NJLAD and the ADA, see Tartaglia v. UBS 

PaineWebber, Inc., 961 A.2d 1167, 1192 (N.J. 2008), our discussion applies equally to both of 

these claims

2 We agree with the District Court that Holland failed to establish that he engaged in any 

protected activity before the time of the claimed adverse action, as he could not identify any 

specific incident when he documented parking violations at Landmark prior to the ban.
4

violations were issued.

3 This period of time is not suggestive of a retaliatory motive 

based on the protected activity. LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Cmty. Ctr. Ass’n, 503 F.3d 

217, 233 (3d Cir. 2007) (gap of three months between protected activity and adverse 

action, without more, cannot create inference of causation to defeat summary judgment). 

We agree with the District Court that the ban letter’s timing “suggests that it was causally 

connected to Cottrell’s opposition to [Landmark’s] liquor license renewal.” Dist. Ct. Op. 

at 12. The letter was issued ten days after a public meeting, held at Cottrell’s request, at 

which she opposed renewal of Landmark’s liquor license, for reasons having nothing to 

do with Landmark’s alleged ADA violations. 

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.4

 3 Cottrell documented some alleged parking violations on June 26 and 27, 2006, but the 

complaints were not signed or issued until two weeks after the ban letter was sent, and Cottrell 

does not claim that Landmark was aware of this protected activity before the complaints were 

issued.

4 Appellants’ motion to file a CD containing exhibits is granted and the appellee’s motion to 

strike the appellants’ brief is denied.