Miller v. California Speedway Corp.

• Citation: 453 F.Supp.2d 1193
• Decision Date: 08 September 2006
• Docket Number: No. EDCV0100434SGL.,EDCV0100434SGL.
• Parties: Robert MILLER, Plaintiff, v. The CALIFORNIA SPEEDWAY CORPORATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

453 F.Supp.2d 1193

Robert MILLER, Plaintiff, v. The CALIFORNIA SPEEDWAY CORPORATION, Defendant.

No. EDCV0100434SGL.

United States District Court, C.D. California.

September 8, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

James Richard Boyd, Center For Disability Access, Mark D. Potter, Center For Disability Access, Russell C. Handy, Center For Disability Access, San Marcos, CA, for Robert Miller, Plaintiff.

Bryan R. Reid, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith, Jennifer C. Hsu, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith, San Bernardino, CA, Michael R. Young, Elliot Snyder & Reid, Redlands, Rima M Badawiya, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith, San Bernardino, CA, for The California Speedway Corporation, Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

LARSON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (plaintiffs, filed on January 30, 2006, and defendant's, filed on January 31, 2006). The Court has read and considered the moving, opposition, and reply documents, as well as an evidentiary objection and the parties' evidence. The Court has also considered an Amicus Brief, filed by the United States Department of Justice on June 9, 2006, and defendant's Reply thereto. The matter was heard on August 28, 2006. Pursuant to the evidence presented and arguments offered by the parties, the Court issues the following order DENYING plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTING defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. Nature of the Case and Issue Presented

This action is brought pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189, and arises out of the inability of a wheelchair-bound NASCAR race spectator to see over the heads and bodies of ambulatory spectators who stand during the exciting parts of NASCAR races. In addition to the ADA claim, plaintiff brings similar state-law claims.

The undisputed facts presented by this action require the Court to determine what deference, if any, should be given to the Department of Justice's ("the DOJ") interpretation of a provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). See 28 C.F.R., Pt. 26, Appdx. A, § 4.33.3 (hereinafter "ADAAG" § 4.33.3). Specifically, this case addresses the deference to be given the DOJ's interpretation of ADAAG § 4.33.3, which reads: "Wheelchair areas shall be an integral part of any fixed seating plan and shall be provided so as to provide people with physical disabilities a choice of admission prices and lines of sight comparable to those for members of the general public." The DOJ has interpreted § 4.33.3 to mean that, "in assembly areas where spectators can be expected to stand during the event or show being viewed, the wheelchair locations must provide lines of sight over spectators who stand." 1994 Supplement, DOJ Technical Assistance Manual, § III-7.5180 (hereinafter "1994 TAM Supplement").

In the end, the Court determines that, as a matter of law, it may not give deference to the DOJ's current position on § 4.33.3, as expressed in the 1994 TAM Supplement. Moreover, because the DOJ's 1994 interpretation imposing the "lines of sight" requirement was adopted without the requisite notice-and-comment period mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), the interpretation, and thus the requirement, must be rejected in favor of the DOJ's original interpretation that failed to impose the "lines of sight" requirement.

II. Objection to Evidence

Defendant objects to plaintiffs expert's declaration in which the expert offers an opinion that defendant argues amounts to a conclusion of law. See Bishop Decl. ¶ 8 ("It is my expert opinion that the upper[-]level wheelchair seating area does not provide wheelchair patrons a line of sight over standing spectators."). Defendant's objection is overruled. Although Bishop uses the same phrase as the regulation, "line of sight," it is clear in context that Bishop is not making a conclusion of law; rather, Bishop merely offers the opinion that, based on his examination of the site, plaintiff, when using his wheelchair, would be unable to see the track over standing spectators. Therefore, the opinion addresses a matter of fact.

By contrast, defendant's expert offers a conclusion of law. See Gibbens Decl. ¶ 7 ("In my on-site inspection of THE CALIFORNIA SPEEDWAY, as well as review of diagrams of the [S]peedway, I agree that the subject seating does in fact comply with the applicable provisions of the [Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines] and the [California Building Code] and that plaintiffs allegations are without merit . . . . [P]laintiffs contention that he is entitled to' an unobstructed line of sight over the heads of standing spectators is without merit.").

The Court will draw its own conclusions of law.

III. Uncontroverted Facts

Defendant, the California. Speedway Corporation ("the Speedway"), operates a racing track located in Fontana, California. The Speedway is a track and stadium facility that is open to and sells tickets to the public for events such as NASCAR racing. The Speedway was built after January, 1993.

Plaintiff Robert Miller is disabled and uses a wheelchair for mobility. Specifically, plaintiff became a quadriplegic after an injury severed his spinal cord at, the C5/C6 vertebra level.

Each year since the Speedway opened in 1997, plaintiff has attended three to six of its NASCAR races.

The Speedway has wheelchair spaces located on the upper level of the Speedway. When plaintiff occupies these spaces in his wheelchair, he is unable to see over the ambulatory spectators in the rows in front of him when those spectators stand.¹ Not surprisingly, the ambulatory spectators tend to stand up to see the more exciting parts of the race, making it impossible for plaintiff to see "the part of the race [he] wants to see the most." Miller Depo. at 27.

IV.. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is proper only where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. Rule Civ. P. 56(c).

The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Whether a fact is material is determined by looking to the governing substantive law; if the fact may affect the outcome, it is material. Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

If the moving party meets its initial burden, the "adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading, but the adverse party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Mere disagreement or the bald assertion that a genuine issue of material fact exists does not preclude the use of summary judgment. Harper v. Wallingford, 877 F.2d 728 (9th Cir.1989).

V. Plaintiff's ADA Claim

A. ADA Title III

Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination "on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation." 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). The ADA definition of "public accommodation" includes race tracks such as the Speedway. See 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(c) ("`Public accommodation' [includes] a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment ...."). Title III requires that facilities constructed for first occupancy on or after January 26, 1993, be "readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, except where an entity can demonstrate that it is structurally impracticable." 42 U.S.C. § 12183; 28 C.F.R. § 36.401(a)(1).

To implement these provisions, Congress directed the Department of Justice to "issue regulations . . . that include standards applicable to facilities" covered by Title III. 42 U.S.C. 12186(b). These standards must "be consistent with the minimum guidelines and requirements issued by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board" ("Access Board").² 42 U.S.C. § 12186(c).

Pursuant to this statutory authority, the DOJ has issued voluminous regulations implementing Title III. See generally 28 C.F.R., part 36. Significant to this case is ADAAG § 4.33.3, which requires that wheelchair-bound spectators be afforded "lines of sight comparable to those for members of the general public." Id. Specifically, at issue in this case is whether the Court must give deference to the DOJ's position that § 4.33.3 requires that wheelchair spaces must be situated in such a manner as to give wheelchair-bound spectators a clear line of sight over standing spectators. See Thomas Jefferson University v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 512, 114 S.Ct 2381, 129 L.Ed.2d 405 (noting that an agency's interpretation of its own regulation must be given deference so long as it is not "plainly erroneous or inconsistent" with the regulation).

B. The DOJ's Current Interpretation is Reasonable

Courts are required to "give substantial deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations." Thomas Jefferson University, 512 U.S. at 512, 114 S.Ct. 2381. In other words, the court need not "decide which among several competing interpretations best serves the regulatory purpose[; r]ather, the agency's interpretation must be given controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Here, the Court is satisfied that the DOJ's current position on ADAAG § 4.33.3 is reasonable. Title III requires that public...