Stiner v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc.

Background

The court had previously deferred ruling on plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment concerning access-barrier claims. Plaintiffs later proposed an order declaring as a matter of law that 42 alleged barriers at Brookdale facilities violated the federal accessibility guidelines known as the Americans with Disabilities Act Architectural Guidelines. The proposed order concerned eight barriers at Brookdale’s Brookhurst facility, 18 at the former Fountaingrove facility, and 16 at the Hemet facility.

Based on the parties’ representations at the pretrial conference, the court understood the parties to agree that the barriers listed in plaintiffs’ motion existed as described and did not comply with the applicable guidelines. Brookdale opposed plaintiffs’ proposed legal conclusion on standing grounds.

Standing dispute

The court focused on the standing of Jeanette Algarme, the representative of the Brookhurst subclass. Plaintiffs argued that an earlier order denying Brookdale’s motion for summary judgment on standing grounds had established Algarme’s standing. The court rejected that argument. It explained that denying Brookdale’s motion only meant that plaintiffs had shown enough evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact about standing; it did not mean plaintiffs had established standing as a matter of law.

For their own summary-judgment motion, plaintiffs had to show that no genuine dispute existed about the material facts supporting Article III standing and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court stated that a plaintiff seeking an injunction under the Americans with Disabilities Act may establish standing by showing an intent to return to a noncompliant facility and likely encounter the barrier again, or by showing that the barriers deter the plaintiff from returning.

Algarme stated under oath that she would return to the Brookhurst facility only if it were made accessible to people with mobility disabilities by removing all current access barriers. Brookdale pointed to her serious medical conditions, including paralysis in her legs, her need for assistance moving in bed and leaving bed, and her statement that she did not leave her current facility to go out into the world. Plaintiffs pointed to evidence that Algarme had attended weekly medical appointments outside her facility as recently as July 2024.

Ruling and next steps

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Brookdale, the court found genuine disputes of material fact about whether Algarme could show the required intent to return to Brookhurst. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. therefore denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to the Brookhurst subclass’s access-barrier claims. The court stated that Algarme’s standing would be decided at the forthcoming trial.

The court noted that the parties’ apparent agreement about the existence of the Brookhurst barriers and their noncompliance with the accessibility guidelines left no evident need for a factfinder to decide those specific issues at trial. It directed the parties to meet and confer about how to present those undisputed matters to the jury, such as through a joint stipulation or a motion for summary adjudication.

In its conclusion, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to the Brookhurst subclass’s access-barrier claims arising under both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Act. The court reserved ruling on the individual plaintiffs’ access-barrier claims involving Hemet and Fountaingrove because the parties had not addressed those individuals’ standing and the forthcoming trial did not involve those claims.