Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

George v. AZ Eagle TT Corp.

United States District Court, D. Arizona

March 12, 2013

Ronnie George, Plaintiff,
v.
AZ Eagle TT Corporation, Defendant

For Ronnie George, an individual, Plaintiff: David J Don, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Offices of David J Don PLLC, Phoenix, AZ.

For AZ Eagle TT Corporation, an Arizona corporation, ETT Valley Fair LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Defendants: David A Selden, LEAD ATTORNEY, Cavanagh Law Firm PA, Phoenix, AZ; Julie A Pace, LEAD ATTORNEY, The Cavanagh Law Firm PA, Phoenix, AZ.

OPINION

Page 972

Roslyn O. Silver, Chief United States District Judge.

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 10). For the reasons below, the motion will be denied.

BACKGROUND

Defendant owns, operates, leases or leases to others a shopping center, which is a place of public accommodation. Plaintiff's son, Michael George, is disabled as a result of muscular dystrophy, and requires a wheelchair for mobility. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff and his son are long-time customers at Defendant's shopping center, and plan to return to the property to enjoy the goods and services offered. Plaintiff is deterred from visiting and patronizing Defendant's shopping center because of discriminatory conditions, including mobility-related architectural barriers such as improper ramp slopes. Defendant has failed to make reasonable accommodations, such as removing architectural barriers that are readily removable. As a result, Defendant has denied Plaintiff an equal opportunity to enjoy Defendant's shopping center.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (" ADA" ) and Arizonans with Disabilities Act (" AzDA" ) by failing to remove architectural

Page 973

barriers at the shopping center. Defendant argues Plaintiff has not established associational standing, and moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

Defendant challenges Plaintiff's standing under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The Court assumes Plaintiff's factual allegations are true, but need not " accept the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations." Doe v. Holy , 557 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2009). Although Defendant is the moving party, Plaintiff has the burden of establishing standing. Hernandez v. Vallco Int'l Shopping Ctr., LLC , 2011 WL 890720, *3 (N.D. Cal. March 14, 2011) (" when subject matter jurisdiction is ...


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.