Sandi Rush v. Sport Chalet, Inc.

Good Law
779 F.3d 973·2015 WL 872230·90 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1774·2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3377
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 3, 201512-57253California805 words

Opinion

Opinion

Motz, J.

Plaintiff Sandi Rush appeals the district court’s sua sponte order that dismissed Defendants ’Petsmart, Inc.; Sport Chalet, Inc.; and Foothill Ranch, LLC (collectively “defendants”) after holding that they were improperly joined. We reverse the district court’s legal conclusion under Rule 20 as to Foothill Ranch. We also vacate its decision to dismiss rather than sever the retail defendants and remand with instructions.

I.

Rush is wheelchair-bound and “physically disabled” under applicable federal and California law. She alleges she encountered physical barriers that interfered with her access at three retail stores located in a shopping mall at 26532 Towne Center Drive in Foothill Ranch, CA (“Towne Center”). Although not pleaded, the district court below found that defendant Foothill Ranch is “likely the landlord ... and has a landlord-tenant relationship with each of the other Defendants.” The barriers complained of by Rush include various obstructions in each of the retailers’ restrooms, and also inside the dressing room at Sport Chalet.

Rush filed her complaint on May 14, 2012. After settling her claims with Babies “R” Us, Rush filed a notice of dismissal under…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.