Strojnik

Facts/Conclusions of Law ECF 47-2.” [Docket No. 48.] Strojnik’s objection is procedurally improper because it is not contained within the opposition brief. See Civ. L.R. 7-3(a). The court nevertheless considers it because his opposition brief and objection altogether fall within the total Moraya’s motions are denied. Strojnik’s cross-motion is also denied. I. BACKGROUND Neither party offered any evidence in support of their cross-motions for summary judgment; as a result, the following facts come from the FAC. Strojnik resides in Maricopa County, Arizona. FAC ¶ 3. He alleges that he is “legally disabled by virtue of a severe right- sided neural foraminal stenosis with symptoms of femoral neuropathy, prostate cancer and renal cancer, missing part of a limb (prosthetic right knee) and pleurisy.” Id. When active, these physical impairments require Strojnik to use a wheelchair for mobility purposes. Id. ¶¶ 5, 9. When the impairments are mitigated, Strojnik “walks and stands with difficulty and pain” and “requires compliant mobility accessible features at places of public accommodation.” Id. ¶ 9. 10 Moraya owns and operates a…