Opinion ID: 786958
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dismissal of Action Against Events, Stay of Dismissal, and Vacatur of Stay

Text: 16 Events then moved for judgment on the pleadings, contending that because the Center is owned by a public entity, it is not a place of public accommodation within the meaning of Title III of the ADA. On October 1, 2001, the district court agreed, reasoning: The venue chosen by [Events] is owned by the State of Nevada, and, therefore is not a facility that's a public accommodation. The term, `public accommodation,' encompasses only private entities. 17 At the time the court ruled on Events' motion to dismiss on the merits, however, the UNLV Center had not yet been served with the first amended complaint. In granting the motion, the court stated: 18 [T]here is still before this Court ... the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, is a — is before the Court having been joined as what the Court concludes was a necessary party.... [T]he Motion to Dismiss filed by [Events] is granted, and this action is dismissed as to [Events]. It is so ordered. This will constitute findings and conclusions of the Court. 19 The district court then suggested that Disabled Rights consider entering into a stipulation dismissing the action against Cowboys on the same grounds as those raised by Events. The court explained, [I]f you can work out the language, [a stipulation] will be fine with me, which in effect, I guess, would end up dismissing this case, but preserving your right to appeal as to the parties involved. 20 Later that day, after the hearing was over, the court, sua sponte, stayed its order granting Events' motion to dismiss. A second hearing was held on October 5, 2001, to again consider the appropriate disposition of Events' motion. This time, the court, after expressing uncertainty as to the proper resolution and hearing further argument, discussed the status of UNLV's participation in the case: 21 THE COURT: [T]he University has been joined as a necessary party, I concluded that that was the case here, they're still in this action, but I take it what, they haven't been served or something? 22 MR. ARMKNECHT: They haven't been served, your honor. I still have about forty more days to do that, but — 23 THE COURT: But I take it you're not going to do that? This is an unusual situation. 24 MR. ARMKNECHT: I'll serve them, your honor, I just, you know, if it's going to be dismissed, I guess I'll serve them anyway, I'll serve them, but I'm not going to bring them in for Title II purposes.... 25 THE COURT: You're not going to, you're not going to be successful against them under Title III. 26 The district court then vacated the stay of its October 1 order dismissing the action against Events, thereby reinstating the dismissal order. 27