|
|
|
|
Case DevelopmentsDecember 2009: On Dec. 16th we had a hearing in the Taco Bell case. Taco Bell had moved for summary judgment. Briefly, they have tried to fix all of their ADA violations in the restaurants at issue. They argued that by doing so they had mooted our claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and those claims should be dismissed. At the hearing, the Court denied Taco Bell's motion. This, of course, is a positive development. In addition, the Court decided that it is going to set a trial for one restaurant to get a sense of the relevant issues. This trial will cover all issues including class member damages for that restaurant. We will select the restaurant that will be tried. We anticipate this trial will occur late this year. This too is a positive development. You can read Judge Hamilton's order by clicking here. June 2009: Defendant requested a three-month extension of all deadlines in the case, and on June 18, 2009, the Court granted this request. As a result, the deadline for the parties to move for summary judgment on the ADA claims is October 20, 2009, and the hearing on those motions is set for December 16, 2009. November 2008: The Court denied Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment. The Defendant had argued that certain of the class claims brought under the ADA should be dismissed based on the statute of limitations. The Court rejected this argument and denied Defendant’s motion. June 27, 2008: The case has been reassigned to Judge Phyllis Hamilton, who has decided not to conduct a bellwether trial. Instead, the case will be tried in two phases, with Phase One addressing Plaintiffs’ claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Phase Two addressing Plaintiffs’ claims under California state law. The deadline for the parties to move for summary judgment on the ADA claims is July 29, 2009, and the hearing on those motions is set for September 23, 2009. August 8, 2007: The Court granted in part and denied in part our motion for partial summary judgment. We have moved for summary judgment on queue lines, indoor seating areas, and the force necessary to open exterior and restroom doors in certain restaurants. In other words, we asked the Court to find as a matter of law that these elements violate state and/or federal access laws. The Court ruled in our favor on interior seating areas, restroom door force, and exterior door forces in restaurants built after April 1, 1994, holding that these elements violated state and/or federal law. In addition, the Court held that the queue lines on which we moved violated state and/or federal law, but held that there was a factual question concerning the auxiliary access that people who use wheelchairs or scooters are supposed to use. Read the summary judgment decision (PDF). Very important: While the summary judgment decision was a significant victory, there are still many disputed issues in this case. It is impossible to predict when this case will be resolved. In other developments, the Court appointed a Special Master to survey every restaurant at issue in the case. That process is now complete. September 27, 2007: The Court held a scheduling conference to determine the next steps in the case. The Court determined that it would conduct a two-week bellwether trial in November 2008. A bellwether trial is a trial of a limited number of cases or claims in a class action. Here, the bellwether trial will address the architectural elements in up to 20 restaurants. The results of that trial may be relevant to the remaining approximately 200 restaurants at issue in this case. The parties will engage in discovery and motions practice between now and trial. Additional court documents in this case.
Note: The Pleadings are in Adobe Reader (PDF) format. Please
contact Fox & Robertson if you require a
different format. |
Copyright © Fox & Robertson, P.C. |
