Contractors of America, Inc. Lawrence A. The United States alleges that Ellerbe has repeatedly designed arenas and stadiums with wheelchair seating locations that do not provide wheelchair users with lines of sight to the floor or field that are comparable to those of other spectators. The United States seeks civil penalties and an injunction compelling Ellerbe to comply with the requirements of the ADA in designing arenas and stadiums in the future.
This matter is before the Court on Ellerbe's motion to dismiss. Ellerbe also objects to this Court's consideration of the United States' claims on a variety of other grounds, including standing, comity, the "first-filed" rule, and an allegation that the government is forum-shopping.
The Court first considers these alleged bars to its consideration of the merits of this action, and then turns to the substantive motion to dismiss. Ellerbe argues that the United States lacks standing because neither injunctive relief nor civil penalties are appropriate in this case and there is therefore no likelihood that the claimed injury will be redressed by a favorable decision for plaintiff on the merits.
Ellerbe argues that a civil penalty would be inappropriate in this case because there is no evidence that Ellerbe willfully, intentionally or recklessly disregarded the law. The United States disputes this claim, citing deposition testimony it claims demonstrates Ellerbe's willful or intentional disregard for the law.
The existence and significance of Ellerbe's "good faith," which the Court must consider in determining whether to assess a civil penalty, is not a matter appropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss. Ellerbe argues that injunctive relief is not appropriate in this case as it would not serve a remedial purpose, apparently claiming that injunctive relief would be remedial only if it bound all design professionals. Ellerbe provides no support for this assertion.
The Court will face this issue only in the event it finds that architects are subject to liability under the ADA and the United States proves that Ellerbe has engaged in a pattern or practice of designing noncompliant facilities.
It would be premature at this juncture to determine whether injunctive relief would serve a hypothetical remedial purpose. All of these arguments are based on the same underlying objection to the United States' case. The United States has brought a pattern or practice discrimination claim against Ellerbe. See Int'l Brhd. United States, U.
In its Complaint, the government lists five arenas as exemplars of Ellerbe's alleged discriminatory pattern. The United States claims that these five arenas are simply illustrative of Ellerbe's conduct, rather than an exclusive list of the arenas at issue. Ellerbe's objections are based on the fact that similar lawsuits have been filed in other jurisdictions involving the same arenas and stadiums.
The United States was involved in one such case in an amicus capacity, litigation regarding the M. Center arena in Washington D. The District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Ellerbe from that lawsuit on the grounds that architects are not subject to liability under the ADA.
See Paralyzed Veterans of Am. Ellerbe accuses the government of forum-shopping for filing this pattern or practice suit against Ellerbe after Ellerbe was dismissed from the D. The United States claims it cannot be forum-shopping because this lawsuit is the only action it has filed anywhere in the United States. The government appeared in the D. Furthermore, the Court agrees that actions brought by private parties cannot bind the government, that the United States has an independent interest in the enforcement of federal law, and that only the United States is empowered to bring pattern or practice claims and to secure civil penalties.
The United States also contends that it informed Ellerbe of its intent to sue in this jurisdiction before the D. The Court finds no basis for concluding that the United States is "forum-shopping," or any legal basis for dismissing the case simply because the United States has filed a lawsuit seeking a different result from that obtained by a private party in another jurisdiction. More troubling to the Court, however, are problems inherent in the existence of pending lawsuits brought by private parties in other jurisdictions alleging non-compliance with the ADA's line of sight requirements with respect to four of the five arenas listed in the United States' Complaint.
While it is true that the United States seeks only prospective relief and civil penalties in this case, this Court will be required, assuming defendant's instant motion fails, to decide the same questions presented to other jurisdictions regarding whether the arenas were designed in violation of the line of sight requirement.
Defendant, however, has not demonstrated that this potential for overlapping legal issues is a bar to this Court's consideration of the action before it. Rather, the Court anticipates that collateral estoppel issues may arise as this litigation progresses. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. Scheuer v. Rhodes, U. When analyzing a motion to dismiss, the Court presumes all facts alleged in the complaint to be true.
Hishon v. The complaint must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in plaintiff's favor. The court will dismiss a complaint, however, when it appears the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of its claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, U. Ellerbe is an architectural and engineering firm headquartered in Minnesota, with offices around the United States.
The United States contends that Ellerbe Becket has designed and constructed a series of arenas and stadiums that do not comply with the ADA. Specifically, the government alleges that the facilities have wheelchair seating locations that do not provide wheelchair users with lines of sight to the floor or field comparable to those enjoyed by non-disabled spectators.
The lines of sight from the wheelchair seating areas are not comparable to those of non-disabled spectators because they do not allow patrons in wheelchairs to see the facility's floor when other patrons stand. Ellerbe designed each of the five facilities named in the Complaint for a different owner.
Ellerbe is not the owner, operator, lessor or lessee of any of the arenas listed in the United States' Complaint. Ellerbe moves to dismiss the government's Complaint on the grounds that architects are not subject to liability under the ADA.
According to the United States, inclusion of the word "design" in the ADA indicates Congress' intention to subject those who design buildings to liability. The government argues that Ellerbe's interpretation is inconsistent with the remedial purpose of the ADA and that it would leave an inexplicable gap in coverage of the statute. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds the government's interpretation of the statute more persuasive, and therefore denies the motion to dismiss the Complaint.
The Court also finds, in accordance with the D. Circuit's opinion in Paralyzed Veterans of Am. Arena, L. The purpose of the ADA is to provide "a clear and comprehensive mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.
Title III of the ADA bars discrimination in places of public accommodation against any person "on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations.
New construction subject to the ADA must be "readily accessible to and usable by" the disabled. Architectural standards for design and construction of new buildings are to be set by the Attorney General.
The Attorney General carries out this mandate through a regulation known as the "Standards for Accessible Design. Part 36, App. These standards set out requirements for wheelchair seating for newly constructed arenas and stadiums as follows:. Info Reviews. Ellerbe Becket 5. Open now 24 hours a day. Description Building and construction earned their own significance in city's life. You can learn more by dialing a number: Special Services Architecture and structural engineering.
Phone number. Let the company know you found their phone number on NiceLocal - businesses work best when they know you can affect their rating Was your phone call answered? Metro Center yd. Gallery Place 0. Federal Triangle 0. Working hours 24 hours a day. Write a review Edit your review. Reviews about Ellerbe Becket 5. Type in your name. Submit Cancel. Show more 0 reviews.
0コメント