Barrilleaux v. Mendocino Cnty.

• Decision Date: 26 July 2018
• Docket Number: Case No. 14-cv-01373-DMR
• Parties: JESSICA BARRILLEAUX, Plaintiff, v. MENDOCINO COUNTY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

JESSICA BARRILLEAUX, Plaintiff, v. MENDOCINO COUNTY, Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01373-DMR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

July 26, 2018

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART THE COUNTY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 166, 197

Plaintiff Jessica Barrilleaux ("Barrilleaux") is an individual with a disability whose lawsuit arises out of an incident at the Mendocino County Superior Court courthouse located in Ukiah, California ("the courthouse"). She alleges violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504"), the California Disabled Persons Act, see Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54, 54.1, and 55 ("CDPA"), California Government Code Section 11135, and state common law.

On April 23, 2013, Barrilleaux fell as she was walking down the stairs in the courthouse and injured her left knee. She filed this lawsuit against the Superior Court of California, County of Mendocino; the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts (collectively the "Judicial Defendants"); and Mendocino County ("the County"). Barrilleaux settled with the Judicial Defendants. All that remains are her claims against the County.

The County now moves for summary judgment on all claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. [Docket No. 166] ("MSJ"). Barrilleaux opposes and cross-moves for summary judgment. [Docket No. 197] ("Cross-MSJ"). The court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing, which the parties timely filed. [Docket Nos. 208, 209, 210]. The matter is suitable for determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having carefully considered the parties' submissions, the court grants in part and denies in part the County's motion and denies Barrilleaux's cross-motion.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS ............................................................................................... 4

A. Barrilleaux's Objections ..................................................................................................... 4

1. Correll-Rose and Shaver Declarations ............................................................................ 4

2. Supplemental Keck Declaration ..................................................................................... 6

3. Amended Response to Barrilleaux's Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice .......................... 7

B. The County's Objections .................................................................................................... 7

1. Yu Declaration ................................................................................................................ 8

2. Barrilleaux's Medical Records (Exhibits 1 through 4 to Yu Declaration) ..................... 9

3. Exhibits 4-11, 13, 14, 16, 23, and 24-26 to Rein Declaration ...................................... 10

II. CLAIMS PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT .................................................................... 13

III. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 20

A. History of the Courthouse ................................................................................................. 20

1. Prior Disability Access Complaints About the Courthouse .......................................... 21

2. Transfer of Responsibilities Regarding the Courthouse ............................................... 22

3. Barrilleaux's April 2013 Visits to the Courthouse ....................................................... 25

B. Relevant Procedural History ............................................................................................. 26

IV. LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................ 28

V. DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................... 29

A. The County's Motion for Summary Judgment ................................................................. 29

1. The ADA ....................................................................................................................... 30

a. Existing Facilities - 28 C.F.R. § 35.150 ............................................... 31

b. New Construction and Alterations - 28 C.F.R. § 35.151 ........................... 32

2. The 1991 and 1996 Renovations, and Pre-2013 Construction Work on the 4th Floor . 33a. 1991 Renovation .......................................................................... 33

b. 1996 Renovation ......................................................................... 35

c. Pre-2013 Construction Work on 4th Floor ........................................... 35

3. Liability for Maintenance and Improvement of the Courthouse .................................. 36

4. Standing ........................................................................................................................ 43

a. Causation .................................................................................. 44

b. Redressability .............................................................................. 45

c. Realistic Threat of Future Harm ........................................................ 45

5. Mootness ....................................................................................................................... 48

6. ADA .............................................................................................................................. 49

a. Denial of the County's Services, Programs, or Activities ........................... 50

b. Discrimination Because of Disability ................................................ 52

c. Deliberate Indifference .................................................................. 52

7. Section 504 .................................................................................................................... 54

8. State Law Claims .......................................................................................................... 55

B. Barrilleaux's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment ....................................................... 58

VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 59

I. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

The parties each filed evidentiary objections.

A. Barrilleaux's Objections

Barrilleaux objects to portions of the Declarations of Heather Correll-Rose and Christopher Shaver, the Supplemental Declaration of Anne Keck and certain exhibits attached thereto, and the County's Amended Response to Barrilleaux's Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice.

1. Correll-Rose and Shaver Declarations

Barrilleaux objects to the Correll-Rose and Shaver declarations because they base some of their statements on "information and belief," rather than personal knowledge as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(4).

Correll-Rose is a Risk Analyst with the County Executive Office. See Declaration of Heather Correll-Rose ("Correll-Rose Decl.") [Docket No. 168]. As a Risk Analyst, she analyzes and manages all tort claims and lawsuits filed against the County. Correll-Rose Decl., ¶ 1. The County designated her as its Rule 30(b)(6) witness on the existence of any complaints or requests for accommodation received by the County regarding disability access issues related to the main staircase and/or to the 4th floor of the courthouse from January 1, 1968 to December 1, 2016. See Def.'s Amended Resp. to Pl.'s Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Dep. Notice ("Amended Resp. to Rule 30(b)(6) Depo. Notice") (Ex. I) at 4-5 to Suppl. Decl. of Anne Keck ("Suppl. Keck Decl.") [Docket No. 201-1]. In her declaration, Correll-Rose discusses various topics including the existence of prior disability-access complaints regarding the 2nd and 4th floors and the courthouse's restrooms, the County's prior knowledge of Barrilleaux's disability and her desire to access the courthouse, the area where Barrilleaux fell, and her access to other floors in the courthouse. Correll-Rose Decl., ¶¶ 2-4, 6, 8-12.

Shaver is the County's Deputy Chief Executive Officer. Decl. of Christopher Shaver ("Shaver Decl.") [Docket No. 167]. The County designated Shaver to testify as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on the types of alterations made to the 4th floor of the courthouse containing courtrooms F and G from January 1, 1968 to December 1, 2016; all programs, services, and activities offered by the County on the 4th floor of the courthouse from July 1, 1994 to December, 1, 2016; and theCounty's agreement with the Judicial Council Administrative Officer of the Court regarding the responsibility for maintenance, alteration, and construction of the courthouse from December 23, 2008 to December 1, 2016. See Def.'s Amended Resp. to Rule 30(b)(6) Depo. Notice (Ex. I) at 2, 7-9 to Suppl. Keck Decl. In his declaration, Shaver discusses the history of the courthouse and its layout, and the transfer of responsibility regarding the courthouse from the County to the Judicial Defendants. Like Correll-Rose, Shaver bases certain statements on "information and belief," in addition to personal knowledge. For example, he testifies on information and belief about the years in which certain portions of the courthouse were built, and whether any County office or department ever resided on the 4th floor. See, e.g., Shaver Decl., ¶¶ 2-5, 16-17.

The objections are overruled. Correll-Rose and Shaver are the County's Rule 30(b)(6) deponents. They are providing testimony on behalf of the County. See Exs. 12 (Rule 30(b)(6) testimony of Shaver) [Docket No. 195-12] and 17 (Rule 30(b)(6) testimony of Correll-Rose) [Docket No. 195-17] to Rein Decl. As Rule 30(b)(6) declarants, they are not required to have personal knowledge of all the facts in their declarations. See, e.g., Cooper v. United Air...