Malcolm B. Burbank v. City of Idaho Falls, a Municipal Corporation

98 F.3d 1345 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Malcolm B. BURBANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-35095. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 9, 1996. Decided Sept. 11, 1996. Before: ALARCON, NORRIS, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 We affirm the summary judgment in favor of the City of Idaho Falls because we conclude Burbank did not have a "disability" as defined by the ADA or the Idaho Human Rights Act ("IHRA"). 3 First, Burbank argues that the district court violated the law of the case by granting judgment as a matter of law to defendant Idaho Falls, after the district judge previously assigned to the case had denied defendant's motion for summary judgment. We reject this argument. When denying a motion for summary judgment, a district court creates law of the case when it "clearly intend[s] to decide the issues at hand." Federal Ins. Co.…