United States District Court, D. Idaho
DANIEL MORAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
ALBERTSON'S LLC and ABS ID-O LLC, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Lynn Winmill Chief Judge United States District Court
Court has before it defendant Albertsons, LLC's and ABS
ID-O, LLC Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt 26), and Plaintiff
Moras's Motion to Certify Class (Dkt 29). The Court heard
oral argument on September 1, 2016 and now issues its
decision. The Court will address each motion below.
Moras has a mobility disability and is limited in the major
life activity of walking and relies on a wheelchair, and is
therefore part of a protected class under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1992. Defendant Albertsons, LLC is a
grocery chain which owns and operates retail grocery stores
in a number of states, including Idaho. Moras's Complaint
alleges that Albertsons has failed to maintain its premises
in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1992, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. Specifically, Moras
alleges that non-compliance was observed at seven Albertsons
stores in claimed violation of Title III of the ADA, located
at: 4700 North Eagle Road, Boise, Idaho; 10700 West Ustick
Road, Boise, Idaho; 909 East Parkcenter Boulevard, Boise,
Idaho; 2715 West Overland Road, Boise, Idaho; 3614 West State
Street, Boise, Idaho; 5100 West Overland Road, Boise, Idaho;
1520 North Cole Road, Boise, Idaho.
these locations, Moras hired investigators to examine the
locations, and observed that the parking lots were in
violation of the ADA based on the lack of van accessible
parking spaces, excessive slopes in purportedly accessible
parking spaces and accessible aisles, and improperly mounted
maintains that each Albertsons store is purportedly built in
compliance with the ADA, and is remodeled every eight to
ten-years. Briggs p. 16 11. 11-15. These remodels include a
general architectural review of the store in order to
identify issues that need to be addressed, and all defects in
ADA compliance, if any, are repaired and brought into
compliance. Id. Between the initial construction and
the remodel cycle of each store, Albertsons ADA compliance
policy consists of reliance on customer complaints to
identify maintenance issues at their facilities. Briggs p. 16
11. 1-7. Albertsons' director of project development
explained, "Generally, I think it's - you find
issues and you fix them. If a customer makes a - you know,
lodges a complaint that they have an issue, you know, you
identify the issue and you fix it. So we don't go looking
for issues; but as they arise, we have a maintenance group
and we fix those issues." Id. Alternatively,
store managers and employees may observe and internally
report obvious ADA violations. Briggs p. 17 11. 4-8. For
instance, Mr. Briggs stated, "We may not get a complaint
on an issue that we fix ourselves. If you have a pavement
crack or something that clearly is an issue, we may fix it.
It doesn't necessarily have to be brought up by a
customer. It could be internally identified and fixed."
Briggs p. 99 11. 6-10.
the filing of this lawsuit, Albertsons engaged certain third
parties, including a licensed architect, with a goal of
remediating any issues of compliance with the ADA in the
seven parking lots. SOF ¶ 4. The work which was
completed at these sites included:
• Relocating existing (and sometimes adding) accessible
parking spaces, parking access aisles and accessible paths of
travel to an area where the cross-slope and/or direction of
travel slopes could more easily be achieved within accepted
tolerances. SOF ¶ 10.
• Removing the striping and pavement markings for
existing parking spaces that presented compliance issues and
designating other existing parking as the new accessible
parking places with striping and required pavement markings.
• Performing repair, replacement or modification to the
existing surfaces, or to other accessibility components
(specifically signage mounting heights, and grinding or
smoothing surfaces where signage components were removed) to
comply with ADA regulations and applicable code requirements.
Id. This work generally involved paving, pavement
painting and marking, adjusting the height of existing
accessible signage, or removing existing potentially
non-compliant signage components. Id.
result, Defendant maintains that all seven parking lots
subject to this detailed analysis were brought into full
compliance with the provisions of Title III of the ADA and
its implementing regulations after Plaintiffs Complaint was
filed and prior to Defendant's motion for summary
judgment. SOF ¶¶ 11-12.
judgment is appropriate where a party can show that, as to
any claim or defense, "there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). One of the principal
purposes of the summary judgment "is to isolate and
dispose of factually unsupported claims Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). It is "not a
disfavored procedural shortcut, " but is instead the
"principal tool[ ] by which factually insufficient
claims or defenses [can] be isolated and prevented from going
to trial with the attendant unwarranted consumption of public
and private resources." Id. at 327. "[T]he
mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the
parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported
motion for summary judgment." Anderson v. ...