Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kohler v. CSK Auto, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

January 27, 2014

CHRIS KOHLER, Plaintiff,
CSK AUTO, INC. dba O'REILLY AUTO PARTS #2941, Defendant.


JEFFREY T. MILLER, District Judge.

Defendant CSK Auto, Inc. dba O'Reilly Auto Parts #2941 ("O'Reilly") moves for summary judgment on all claims alleged in Plaintiff Chris Kohler's First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). Plaintiff Chris Kohler opposes the motion. Pursuant to L.R. 7.1(d)(1), the court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants summary judgment on the only federal claim in favor of O'Reilly and against Plaintiff. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismisses the state law claims without prejudice, denies all other pending motions as moot, and instructs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of O'Reilly and against Plaintiff on the ADA claim and to close the file.


On January 20, 2012, Plaintiff, an individual with a mobility disability, commenced this Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") case, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., against O'Reilly. O'Reilly is an establishment located in the Midway Shopping Center located on Midway Drive in San Diego, California. The FAC, filed on January 16, 2013, alleges four causes of action: (1) violation of the ADA; (2) violation of the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civil Code §54; (3) violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act; and (4) denial of full and equal access to public facilities in violation of Health and Safety Code §1995. The court notes that Plaintiff asserted the same or substantially similar claims against O'Reilly and others in a related action, Kohler v. Midland Land, 3:12cv0148 JM(WMc) (S.D. Cal.) "Kohler I."

The Kohler I action, like the present action, is primarily an architectural barriers case. There, Plaintiff alleged the following issues with respect to the parking area near or in front of the O'Reilly store: at least one of the disabled parking spaces lacked signage; the slope of some disabled parking places exceeded 2.0%; the access aisle slope exceeded 2.0%; there was no International Symbol of Accessability mounted at the entrance to the facility; the entrance doors to the O'Reilly store had inaccessible panel handles; the access aisle adjacent to the van accessible parking space is on the wrong side and too narrow; the tow signage was incorrect; and the striping on the disabled parking aisles was faded to the point of being virtually invisible. (Kohler I Compl. ¶16). In addition to the above alleged defects, the FAC in this case also alleges two other deficiencies: the landing at the base of the ramp is too small and the disabled parking spaces are not located along the closest accessible route to the entrance to the O'Reilly store. (FAC ¶10).

O'Reilly was an original Defendant in Kohler I. However, on December 4, 2012, this court concluded that Plaintiff failed to show transactional relatedness between the claims against O'Reilly and the other defendants and dismissed O'Reilly based on misjoinder. In response to that order, Plaintiff commenced the present action.

On April 5, 2013, the court in Kohler I granted summary judgment on the federal claims in favor of defendants and dismissed the state law claims without prejudice. In that order, the court considered, based upon the evidentiary record submitted by Plaintiff and Midland Land, LLC, including the declaration of Midway's expert, Greg Izor, and granted summary judgment finding that there were no material disputed issues of law or fact.

O'Reilly now moves for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion. Plaintiff opposes the motion.


Legal Standards

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted where "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and... the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Prison Legal News v. Lehman , 397 F.3d 692, 698 (9th Cir. 2005). The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the file which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). There is "no express or implied requirement in Rule 56 that the moving party support its motion with affidavits or other similar materials negating the opponent's claim." Id . (emphasis in original). The opposing party cannot rest on the mere allegations or denials of a pleading, but must "go beyond the pleadings and by [the party's] own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file' designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 324 (citation omitted). The opposing party also may not rely solely on conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data. Taylor v. List , 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).

The court must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. United States v. Diebold, Inc. , 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962). Any doubt as to the existence of any issue of material fact requires denial of the motion. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment, when "the moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence were uncontroverted at trial.'" Houghton v. South , 965 F.2d 1532, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992) (emphasis in original) (quoting International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc. , 939 F.2d 1257, 1264-65 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1059 (1992)).

The Motion

Issue preclusion applies when: "first, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be identical to that decided in a former proceeding. Second, this issue must have been actually litigated in the former proceeding. Third, it must have been necessarily decided in the former proceeding. Fourth, the decision in the former proceeding must be final and on the merits. Finally, the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.