Medina-Rodriguez v. Canovanas Plaza Rial

OPINION & ORDER

BRUCE J. McGIVERIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Norberto Medina Rodriguez (“Medina”) brought this action against Canóvanas Plaza Rial, Econo Rial, LLC and Panadería y Repostería La Sevillana, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), alleging unlawful discrimination in a place of public accommodation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (the “ADA”). Medina asked this court for a declaratory judgment that Defendants were in violation of Title III of the ADA and a permanent injunction directing Defendants to comply with the ADA. Dockets (“Dkts.”) 62, 297. This case is before me by consent of the parties. Dkts. 17, 18. The matter was tried on September 14 and 15, 2021. Dkts. 398, 400.

For the reasons set forth below, Medina's request for injunctive relief is DENIED and his claims are dismissed with prejudice.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Medina filed suit in this matter on July 11, 2017, asking for a declaratory judgment that Defendants were in violation of Title III of the ADA, a permanent injunction directing Defendants to comply with the ADA, costs of suit, and attorney's fees. Dkts. 1, 62. Soon after the initial filing, and after obtaining the consent of the parties, Dkt. 17, the case was referred to me for all subsequent proceedings, including entry of judgment. Dkt. 18.

2

In due course, Medina and Defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Dkts. 177, 182. I ruled that neither party was entitled to summary judgment on the question of Medina's disability or whether the size of a bathroom within the La Sevillana bakery (“La Sevillana”) at the Plaza Rial shopping center in Canovanas, Puerto Rico (“Plaza Rial”), owned by defendant Panadería y Repostería La Sevillana, Inc., was ADA-compliant. Dkt. 221 at 16, 20-21. I granted Medina partial summary judgment that a meat counter in the Econo supermarket (“Econo”) at Plaza Rial owned by defendant Canóvanas Plaza Rial, Econo Rial, LLC, violated the ADA. Dkt. 221 at 19; Dkt. 256 at 2-4. I also granted Medina partial summary judgment that the absence of grab bars in the bathroom at La Sevillana was a violation of the ADA. Dkt. 221 at 20. I deferred ruling on the parties' motions as to whether Defendants' parking lot and policies violated the ADA until after an additional deposition took place. Dkt. 221 at 21.

After the deposition took place, Medina again moved for partial summary judgment. Dkts. 247, 282, and Defendants opposed. Dkts. 277, 293. Although Defendants did not move for summary judgment a second time, they renewed their arguments regarding mootness. See Dkt. 277 at 7, 10. I denied Medina's motion for partial summary judgment, Dkt. 295, and found that Medina's claim as it related to the absence of signs accompanying accessible parking spaces was moot. Dkt. 295 at 7. I also ordered Medina to show cause why his claim regarding the size of van-accessible spaces should not be dismissed, Dkt. 295 at 22, and I dismissed the claim when he was unable to do so. Dkt. 300. On August 24, 2020, the parties submitted a joint proposed pretrial order. Dkt. 303.

The matter was tried on September 14 and 15, 2021. Dkts. 398, 400. Plaintiff's witnesses were David J. Ruiz, a former bagger and butcher for Econo; Pedro Alfaro-Del Toro (“Alfaro”), an architect who examined the Plaza Rial premises to see if they complied with the ADA; Faustino

3

Betancourt-Colón, a visitor to Econo (“Betancourt-Colón”); Bryan Muñiz-Betancourt, who worked at Econo as a bagger at the time the incident at issue occurred; and Medina himself. Witnesses for the defense included Pablo Manuel Quiñones Rivera (“Quiñones”), an Econo store manager; Arturo Mayol Corretjer (“Mayol”), a civil engineer who oversaw recent renovations at Plaza Rial; Julio Bonilla Rivera (“Bonilla”), another Econo manager; and Jorge Irvin Rivera-Rosado, the owner of La Sevillana. Both Medina and Defendants submitted exhibits into evidence.

At the close of Medina's evidence, Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50, claiming that there was insufficient evidence that Medina was disabled when he visited Plaza Rial and that Medina's claims are moot because Defendants and their properties at Plaza Rial are currently in full compliance with the ADA. I deferred ruling on these motions. After all the evidence had been presented at trial, Medina moved for sanctions against Defendants on the grounds that Defendants had failed to produce evidence, comprised of designs and drawings made by planners for the recent Plaza Rial renovations, that had been requested during discovery. As a remedy for Defendants' failure to produce the evidence in question, Medina requested that testimony given by Mayol stating that he rebuilt Plaza Rial in accordance with the unproduced designs and other materials be disregarded.

Medina's active claims, involving ADA violations, include the following: (1) whether the disabled parking spaces in the Plaza Rial lot are marked so as to discourage parking in them; (2) whether Defendants have failed to maintain the lot in a condition so that it is useable by Medina; (3) whether there is an ADA-accessible route from the street and sidewalk to the Econo and La Sevillana entrances; (4) whether all disabled parking space access aisles adjoin accessible routes; (5) whether two specific van-accessible disabled parking spaces are located on the closest accessible route to an accessible entrance; (6) whether disabled parking spaces serving Econo and

4

La Sevillana are adequately dispersed; (7) whether the men's restroom at La Sevillana has an accessible door; (8) whether the men's restroom at La Sevillana has an unobstructed 60-inch-diameter turning space; (9) whether the men's restroom at La Sevillana contains toilet stalls; (10) whether the main cashier counter and a new counter at La Sevillana is at a height compliant with the ADA; (11) whether the new counter is regularly staffed; and (12) whether the new counter is impermissibly segregated. Dkt. 303 at 4-7. I previously granted Medina summary judgment regarding his claims that the height of Econo's meat counter was too low and that the La Sevillana bathrooms lacked grab bars, but I will also consider whether these claims are now moot. Medina's counsel acknowledged at trial that his claim regarding the height of the cashier's counter at La Sevillana is moot. Medina previously alleged that the disabled parking spaces at Plaza Rial and accompanying access aisles were too small to comply with the ADA, that the parking lot lacked warning strips, that the parking lot was not smoothly paved, and that the La Sevillana bathroom door handles were not ADA-compliant, but he does not set out these claims in the parties' joint proposed pretrial order. See id.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The following facts are taken from testimony elicited at the September 14 and 15, 2021 trial as well as a list of stipulations by the parties to facts that are not in substantial dispute. Dkt. 303 at 28. Most witness testimony is not in any significant conflict with other parts of the record.

Medina is an adult male who lives in Puerto Rico. He is 6'1” in height. Medina claimed at trial that he has very limited use of his legs and cannot walk far without experiencing pain; he allegedly avoids walking long distances or frequent walking as a result and tries to avoid stairs. He stated that he has an unsteady gait as well as balance issues and that he uses a cane at times to give additional support to his legs. He also said that he had knee surgery, and resulting

5

complications, in February 2017 and provided photographic evidence supporting this claim. See Plaintiff's Exhibits (“Pl. Exs.”) 3, 4. Medina states that he developed bacteria from the surgery, that he had to have his knee reopened, and that doctors placed new material into or around the knee in order to help fight the bacteria. Medina averred that he sometimes experiences dizziness, nausea, and headaches when standing or walking and that his legs sometimes go numb. He testified that he weighs a little over 250 pounds, although he says that he has noticed no connection between his weight and his knee issues. Medina also claimed that he has osteoarthritis and diabetes; however, he provided no medical evidence in support of these diagnoses. He said that he takes medication for his pain and for diabetes as well. Medina noted that his doctor issued him a permit for parking in spaces designated for persons with disabilities before the incidents at issue occurred, and a photograph of his last disabled permit, which expired on June 6, 2021, was admitted into evidence at trial. Pl. Ex. 5. It is not fully clear to what extent the conditions that Medina cited affected him when the incidents at issue took place, although Medina did testify that he was already experiencing knee pain, difficulty walking, leg numbness, and balance issues at the time.

Medina noted that he lives about 8-15 minutes from Plaza Rial depending on traffic. His main doctor and mailbox are located in the Plaza Rial area, his brother lives nearby in a townhouse, and his mother-in-law lives close by as well.

On November 15, 2016, Medina visited Plaza Rial. Medina said that when he arrived, he parked in a spot reserved for disabled people, but found it difficult to park at first because the parking lot's markings had faded and the signs were confusingly located. Medina also stated that he discovered that the disabled parking spaces were too small for him to exit his car comfortably given his knee and other issues.

6

Witness Betancourt-Colón testified that he visited Econo in or around September 2020, that the disabled parking spaces...