Independent Living Resources v. Oregon Arena Corp., Civ. No. 95-84-AS.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Oregon)
Writing for the CourtAshmanskas
Citation982 F.Supp. 698
PartiesINDEPENDENT LIVING RESOURCES, a non-profit corporation, and Robert W. Pike, Plaintiffs, v. OREGON ARENA CORPORATION, Defendant.
Decision Date12 November 1997
Docket NumberCiv. No. 95-84-AS.
982 F.Supp. 698
INDEPENDENT LIVING RESOURCES, a non-profit corporation, and Robert W. Pike, Plaintiffs,
v.
OREGON ARENA CORPORATION, Defendant.
Civ. No. 95-84-AS.
United States District Court, D. Oregon.
November 12, 1997.

Page 699

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 700

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 701

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 702

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 703

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 704

Steve Brischetto, Portland, OR, for Plaintiffs.

David B. Howorth, Foster Pepper & Shefelman, Portland, OR, Frank C. Morris, Jr., Carolyn Doppelt Gray, Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C., Washington, DC, for Defendant.

Okianer Christian Dark, U.S. Attorneys Office, Portland, OR, Thomas M. Contois, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., Washington, DC, for U.S.A. amicus.

OPINION

ASHMANSKAS, United States Magistrate Judge:


 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 705
                II. MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ................................................. 706
                 1. Pattern and Practice ........................................................ 706
                 2. Mental State ................................................................ 707
                 3. Dispersal of Wheelchair Seating: ............................................ 707
                 A. Legal Standards: .................................................................. 708
                 B. Level 7: .......................................................................... 710
                 C. Vertical and Horizontal Distribution: ............................................. 714
                 D. Availability of Wheelchair Seating: ............................................... 717
                 (i) Is OAC Responsible for Infiling and Ticket Sale Policies? .................... 718
                 (ii) Do the Infilling and Ticket Sale Policies at the Rose Garden
                 Violate the Title III Regulations? .......................................... 719
                 (a) Season Tickets and Long-Term Contracts: .................................. 719
                 (b) Tickets for Individual Games: ............................................ 722
                 (c) Tickets for Other Events: ................................................ 723
                 (d) Conclusion: .............................................................. 724
                 4. Companion Seats: ............................................................ 724
                

Page 705

 A. Interpretation of Standard 4.33.3 ................................................ 724
                 B. "Substantially Equivalent or Greater Access" ..................................... 726
                 5. Modified Aisle Seats: ....................................................... 728
                 6. Line of Sight Over Standing Spectators: ..................................... 732
                 A. Whether DOJ could Require that Wheelchair Users be Provided with
                 a Line of Sight Over Standing Spectators ......................................... 732
                 B. Whether such a Requirement does Exist, and Whether it is Binding
                 Upon this Defendant .............................................................. 734
                 (i) Does Timing Matter? .......................................................... 735
                 (ii) Was the 1994 TAM Supplement a Valid Interpretive
                 Regulation? ................................................................. 736
                 (a) Did DOJ Adopt the Access Board Commentary? ............................... 737
                 (b) Other Arguments Regarding Lines of Sight Over Standing
                 Spectators .............................................................. 742
                 (c) The Access Board's Change of Heart ....................................... 743
                 (d) Whether the ADA itself Provides an Independent Source
                 of Authority for Requiring Lines of Sight Over Standing
                 Spectators................................................................ 743
                 C. Whether Defendant has any Defense to the Enforcement of a Requirement
                 to Provide Lines of Sight over Standing Spectators .............................. 747
                 D. Conclusion ........................................................................ 758
                 7. Executive Suites: ........................................................... 758
                 A. Are the Suites Subject to Title III of the ADA? ................................... 758
                 B. Do Plaintiffs have Standing to Maintain this Claim? ............................... 760
                 C. Do the Suites Comply with the ADA? ................................................ 763
                 D. Visual Alarms in the Suites: ...................................................... 764
                 8. Premises Leased to Concessionaires: ......................................... 766
                 9. Camera Operator Areas: ...................................................... 768
                 A. Are the Camera Positions Covered by Title III? .................................... 769
                 B. Is there any Excuse for the Failure to Design these Camera
                 Operator Positions to be Wheelchair Accessible? ................................... 769
                III. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS ON GROUNDS OF MOOTNESS ........................ 770
                 1. Whether Plaintiffs are Entitled to Recover Damages: ......................... 771
                 2. Potential for Future Violations: ............................................ 774
                 3. Issues No Longer in Dispute: ................................................ 774
                 4. Conditions that Defendant Claims to have Redressed but Plaintiffs
                 Disagree: .................................................................. 776
                 5. Conditions that Defendant Denies are a Violation and has Not Modified ....... 779
                 A. Protruding Object Hazards: ........................................................ 779
                 (i) Scope of Rule: .............................................................. 779
                 (ii) Protruding Objects in Parking Garages: ...................................... 780
                 (iii) Placement of Planters, Waste Paper Baskets, and Similar
                 Items Beneath Protruding Objects: .......................................... 780
                 (iv) Mobile Trash Cart: .......................................................... 781
                 (v) Counters on Self-Service Food Carts: ........................................ 781
                 (vi) Counters Mounted on Columns: ................................................ 781
                 (vii) Baby-Changing Areas: ........................................................ 782
                 (viii) Protruding Objects Improperly Mounted Below 80 Inches
                 AFF: .................................................................... 782
                 (ix) Visual Alarms Improperly Mounted Above 80 Inches AFF: ....................... 783
                 B. The Remaining 72 Issues: .......................................................... 783
                 IV. MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS ...................................................... 784
                 V. CONCLUSION ................................................................. 785
                
I. INTRODUCTION

In 1990, Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. The purpose of this legislation was to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities, 42 U.S.C.

Page 706

§ 12101(b).1 To date, most ADA litigation has focused upon Title I, which governs the duties that the ADA imposes upon employers. The instant action concerns the obligations that Title III of the ADA imposes upon those who construct and operate public accommodations such as indoor arenas. The cornerstone of Title III is 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a), which mandates that persons with a disability receive the "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation ..."

The locus of this action is the "Rose Garden," a multi-purpose indoor arena in Portland, Oregon. The Rose Garden was designed for first occupancy after January 26, 1993, and the last building permit, or permit extension, was certified after January 26, 1992. Consequently, the Rose Garden is subject to the rules governing "new construction." 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(1); 28 CFR § 36.401(a)(2). The principal tenants of the Rose Garden are the Portland Trail Blazers NBA basketball team and the Portland Winter Hawks of the Western Hockey League.2 The arena also is used for a wide variety of other events, including ice shows, concerts, soccer, indoor football, and the circus. Plaintiffs contend that numerous features of the Rose Garden's construction, design, and operation violate the ADA as well as ORS 30.675 and ORS 659.425, the parallel state laws forbidding discrimination against persons with a disability.

The plaintiffs in this action are Robert Pike, a Portland attorney with a disability which requires that he use a wheelchair, and Independent Living Resources ("ILR"), a non-profit corporation "organized ... for the purpose of promoting the rights and needs of persons with disabilities for full inclusion and equal access in all aspects of life and providing education, training, and independent living services to persons with disabilities." Complaint ¶ 5. The defendant is the Oregon Arena Corporation ("OAC"), a private company that built, owns, and operates the Rose Garden arena. The United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") has participated in these proceedings as amicus curiae. All parties have consented to allow a Magistrate Judge to enter final orders and judgment in this case in accordance with FRCP 73 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367.

Presently before the court are plaintiffs' motion (# 36) for partial summary judgment, defendant's motion (# 45-1) to dismiss portions of the case as moot, defendant's cross-motions (# 45-2 and # 62) for partial summary judgment, defendant's motion (# 42) to bar the testimony of plaintiffs' experts and to strike their report, defendant's motion (# 59) to compel plaintiffs' expert James Terry to answer certain questions posed during deposition, defendant's motion (# 129) to strike plaintiffs' supplemental concise statement of facts or individual paragraphs thereof, and plaintiffs' motion (# 135) to strike the affidavits of John Salmen, William Crockett, and Teresa Jacubowski.

II. MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
84 practice notes
  • Gunther v. Lin, No. G036042.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 26, 2006
    ...Board,' commonly referred to as the `Access Board.'" (Independent Living Resources v. Oregon Arena Corporation (D. Oregon 1997) 982 F.Supp. 698, 707-708 (hereinafter Independent Living The architectural regulations or "design standards" implemented by the federal ADA are often referred to i......
  • Wash. State Commc'n Access Project v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., No. 67613–0–I.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • January 28, 2013
    ...spaces brought the facility into ADA compliance and mooted plaintiff's claims). 122.Indep. Living Res. v. Or. Arena Corp., 982 F.Supp. 698, 771 (D.Or.1997) (citing City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289, 102 S.Ct. 1070, 71 L.Ed.2d 152 (1982)) abrogated by Indep. Livin......
  • Miller v. California Speedway Corp., No. 06-56468.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • August 8, 2008
    ...Blockbuster-Sony Music Entm't Centre at the Waterfront, 193 F.3d 730, 736-37 (3rd Cir. 1999); Indep. Living Res. v. Oregon Arena Corp., 982 F.Supp. 698, 742-43 (D. Oregon 1997). By contrast, the D.C. Circuit and the District of Minnesota found that the DOJ's regulation does require lines of......
  • Parr v. L & L Drive-Inn Restaurant, No. 97-00729 FIY.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii)
    • May 16, 2000
    ...the court's jurisdiction so long as he does not injure the same person twice." Independent Living Resources v. Oregon Arena Corporation, 982 F.Supp. 698, 702 (D.Or.1997) ("Independent I"). The provisions of the ADA would go unenforced, the alleged unlawful conduct would persist, and Defenda......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
83 cases
  • Gunther v. Lin, No. G036042.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 26, 2006
    ...Board,' commonly referred to as the `Access Board.'" (Independent Living Resources v. Oregon Arena Corporation (D. Oregon 1997) 982 F.Supp. 698, 707-708 (hereinafter Independent Living The architectural regulations or "design standards" implemented by the federal ADA are often referred to i......
  • Wash. State Commc'n Access Project v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., No. 67613–0–I.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • January 28, 2013
    ...spaces brought the facility into ADA compliance and mooted plaintiff's claims). 122.Indep. Living Res. v. Or. Arena Corp., 982 F.Supp. 698, 771 (D.Or.1997) (citing City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289, 102 S.Ct. 1070, 71 L.Ed.2d 152 (1982)) abrogated by Indep. Livin......
  • Miller v. California Speedway Corp., No. 06-56468.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • August 8, 2008
    ...Blockbuster-Sony Music Entm't Centre at the Waterfront, 193 F.3d 730, 736-37 (3rd Cir. 1999); Indep. Living Res. v. Oregon Arena Corp., 982 F.Supp. 698, 742-43 (D. Oregon 1997). By contrast, the D.C. Circuit and the District of Minnesota found that the DOJ's regulation does require lines of......
  • Parr v. L & L Drive-Inn Restaurant, No. 97-00729 FIY.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii)
    • May 16, 2000
    ...the court's jurisdiction so long as he does not injure the same person twice." Independent Living Resources v. Oregon Arena Corporation, 982 F.Supp. 698, 702 (D.Or.1997) ("Independent I"). The provisions of the ADA would go unenforced, the alleged unlawful conduct would persist, and Defenda......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 provisions
  • Fair housing: Fair Housing Act violations; civil penalties,
    • United States
    • Federal Register February 10, 1999
    • February 10, 1999
    ...applicants. A district court commenting on Havens made a similar observation (see Independent Living Resources v. Oregon Arena Group, 982 F.Supp. 698, 761 n.86 (D. Ore. 1997) (``Testing was the most effective method--and perhaps the only method--of enforcing the The commenter's suggestion o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT