Cerda v. Chi. Cubs Baseball Club

• Docket Number: 17C9023
• Decision Date: 21 June 2023
• Parties: DAVID FELIMON CERDA, Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO CUBS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

1

DAVID FELIMON CERDA, Plaintiff,
v.
CHICAGO CUBS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC, Defendant.

No. 17C9023

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

June 21, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HON. JORGE ALONSO United States District Judge

Plaintiff, a Chicago-resident and long-time fan of the Chicago Cubs baseball team, has been attending games at the historic Wrigley Field for over a decade. Wrigley Field, which opened in 1914, has been home to the Chicago Cubs since 1916 and is the second oldest ballpark in the major leagues. Designed in part by early 20th century ballpark architect Zachary Taylor Davis, Wrigley Field is designated as both a Chicago Landmark and a National Historic Landmark. This lawsuit stems from a renovation project (the “1060 Project”) commenced following the 2014 baseball season by Defendant Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC (“Defendant” or “the Cubs”) to structurally reinforce, repair, and modernize the facility, while preserving its historic features and improving accessibility for people with disabilities.

Plaintiff attended many games at Wrigley Field with his godfather, Professor Joseph Ferrie, both before and after the 1060 Project. Prior to 2014, Plaintiff, who has Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and uses a power chair for mobility, particularly enjoyed sitting in accessible seating formerly located behind home plate and in the area currently known as “Budweiser Patio” in the right field bleachers. As a result of the 1060 Project, however, the

2

accessible seating area behind home plate no longer exists as it once did. As for the Budweiser Patio, seating in that area has been sold exclusively to groups since at least 2012, meaning an individual patron (regardless of their need for accessible or standard seating) can no longer buy an individual ticket.

In December 2017, as the multi-phase 1060 Project remained ongoing, Plaintiff filed this discrimination action against the Cubs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. In its enactment of the ADA, Congress expressly found that physical or mental disabilities in no way diminish a person's right to fully participate in all aspects of society, yet many people with physical or mental disabilities have been precluded from doing so because of discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(1). Individuals with disabilities have been, historically, isolated and segregated by society, which continues to be a serious and pervasive social problem. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2). Discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas as public accommodations, 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(3), including the discriminatory effects of architectural barriers, failure to make modifications to existing facilities, and segregation. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(5). In this case, Plaintiff alleges that the Cubs discriminated against him in violation of the ADA by failing to have the minimum number of accessible seats at Wrigley Field and by failing to horizontally disperse accessible seating around the stadium.

The Court held a five-day bench trial beginning April 10, 2023, during which fact witnesses for both sides, and one expert witness for the Cubs, testified. Having considered the trial evidence, the parties' stipulated facts and their post-trial submissions (see Defendant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (“DPFFCL”), ECF No. 245; Plaintiff's [proposed] (Corrected) Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law (“PPFFCL”), ECF No. 247),

3

the Court enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(1) (“In an action tried on the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately.”).

These findings are informed by the Court's credibility assessment of witnesses and the Court's weighing of the evidence. See Lucien v. Welborn, 46 F.3d 1133 (7th Cir. 1995); United States v. Miller, 800 F.2d 129, 136 (7th Cir. 1986). “In a bench trial or hearing without a jury, the district court acts as both gatekeeper and factfinder.” Goodpaster v. City of Indianapolis, 736 F.3d 1060, 1068 (7th Cir. 2013). To the extent that any findings of fact may be considered conclusions of law, they shall be deemed conclusions of law. The same is true with respect to conclusions of law which may be deemed findings of fact. See id.; see also In re. Lemmons & Company, Inc., 742 F.2d 1064, 1070 (7th Cir. 1984) (“The labels of fact and law assigned by the trial court are not controlling.”).

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden of proof on liability and enters judgment in favor of the Cubs.

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. Background

A. The Parties

Plaintiff, a resident of Chicago, Illinois, is a longtime fan of the Chicago Cubs. (Joint Stmt. of Uncontested Facts (“Joint Stmt.”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 220; Tr. 703:4-12.)^[1] He has Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, can no longer walk, and uses a power wheelchair for mobility. (Joint Stmt. ¶ 6.) He has used a wheelchair since 2006. (Id.)

4

Defendant is a professional baseball team that plays home games at Wrigley Field, a major league ballpark in Chicago. (Id. ¶ 7.)

B. Wrigley Field

Wrigley Field has been home to the Chicago Cubs since 1916. (Joint Stmt. ¶ 8; Tr. 594:13-14.) First opened in 1914, it is the second oldest ballpark in the major leagues. (Tr. 594:17-22.) The lower decks of Wrigley Field's grandstand represent the last surviving design of Zachary Taylor Davis, one of the nation's best-known ballpark architects in the early 20th century. (Tr. 594:23-595:2; DX 159.)

The Chicago City Council designated Wrigley Field as a Chicago Landmark in 2004, and in 2020, the National Park Service designated the ballpark as a National Historic Landmark. (Tr. 595:3-7; DX 159.) The ordinance designating Wrigley Field a Chicago Landmark protects, among other things, the “unenclosed, open air character, the exposed structural system, and the generally uninterrupted ‘sweep' and contour of the grandstand and bleachers.” (DX 159.) Wrigley Field also has a historic, hand-operated scoreboard above the center field bleachers. (Tr. 330:8-10.)

Wrigley Field's structural system, common to ballparks of its age, is different from what is seen in new ballparks being built today. (Tr. 259:10-14.) That structural system includes columns that run from below the main concourse level at ground level that proceed up through the lower grandstand, through and supporting the upper deck, until they reach the roof line. (Tr. 259:15-20, 312:13-18.) Wrigley Field's unique layout and structural system, true to its age, allows for the ballpark to have closer, lower seating than other ballparks that are being built today, giving Wrigley Field its signature “close[] . . . coz[y] feeling[,]” commonly referred to as “the friendly confines.” (Tr. 260:5-12 (Meenan).)

5

C. Plaintiff's Attendance at Wrigley Field Prior to 2014

Plaintiff attended numerous games at Wrigley Field prior to 2014. (Joint Stmt. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff sat in accessible seating located in the area currently known as Budweiser Patio in the right field bleachers, behind home plate, in the last row of the terrace level seats on the third base line, and the upper deck beneath the press box. (Id.) Plaintiff particularly enjoyed sitting behind home plate because “you could really see the action” and he did not feel isolated from patrons with general admission tickets, as well as in the right field bleachers (now-Budweiser Patio) because players would throw baseballs up into that section, home runs came in that direction, and “[s]ometimes when the action was getting good, you could hear the players talking to the fans.” (Tr. 710:9-711:7, 711:24-712:12 (Cerda).) Plaintiff found it very exciting when there was a home run and general admission patrons sitting around him would “turn around and say something, or give [him] a high five or something like that, or a smile.” (Tr. 754:3-11 (Cerda).)

D. The 1060 Project

At the conclusion of the 2014 season, the Cubs broke ground on the 1060 Project-a multi-phase, multi-year renovation to upgrade the ballpark and ensure its viability for years to come. (Joint Stmt. ¶ 10; Tr. 612:13-613:9, 615:14-18.) The renovation involved structurally reinforcing and repairing the facility and modernizing it to remain competitive with other major league venues, while preserving its historic features and improving accessibility for people with disabilities. (Tr. 609:23-611:19.)

Renovation work was phased to occur primarily during the relatively short off-season period each year to allow the Cubs to continue to play at the ballpark during baseball season. (Tr. 612:21-613:9.) To accommodate structural and other work that had to be completed first, the

6

addition and modification of accessible seats in the grandstand occurred during the latter phases of the renovation. (Tr. 613:24-615:5, 619:12-16, 625:14-626:9.)

The permitting process for the 1060 Project required review and approval, including by the Commission on Chicago Landmarks (“CCL”) to ensure modifications complied with Wrigley Field's Chicago landmark and federal landmark designations. (Tr. 600:2-9, 602:6-9; DX 160; DX 161; see also DX 159.) The City of Chicago specifically dictated that “[t]he grandstand repair work will match the existing shape, rise and run of the existing grandstand structure.” (DX 160; Tr. 601:2-7.) Carl Rice, who led the 1060 Project on behalf of the Cubs, explained at trial that because of strict restrictions due to the field's landmark status, “the rise and treads and risers and the height of the ballpark, the elevations, the ramps, they were all rebuilt to replicate what was already there . . . the ballpark was built like in kind.” (Tr. 582:23-583:4; see also Tr. 695:413.) Patrick Meenan, Cubs' Vice President of Operations, further testified...