Guerra v. Montage Health

Background

Jazmin Guerra sued Montage Health and Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP) over CHOMP’s October 2021 COVID-19 visitor policy. The policy generally barred visitors from accompanying patients in the emergency department, subject to exceptions approved by a nursing supervisor or administrator. CHOMP rescinded the policy in 2023 and returned to allowing emergency-department visitors.

Guerra alleged that the policy violated Titles III and IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the California Disabled Persons Act, and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. She said that she had panic disorder, social anxiety, and generalized anxiety, and that she requested permission for her husband to accompany her because of those conditions. CHOMP approved the request at about 5:30 p.m., roughly three hours after she arrived and about ten minutes before she was discharged.

Motions and legal standard

The court considered three motions: the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer, Guerra’s motion for summary judgment, and the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute of material fact exists—that is, no factual dispute that could affect the result and that a reasonable fact finder could resolve for the opposing party.

Motion to amend the answer

The defendants sought to correct what they described as an inadvertent admission concerning ADA Title III liability. The court found the motion moot because it later concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Guerra’s Title III claim under the mootness doctrine. The court also rejected Guerra’s argument that the answer’s wording alone entitled her to judgment, finding that the defendants reasonably explained that they intended to admit the quoted statutory language, not liability for violating the statute.

The court therefore terminated as moot the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer.

Guerra’s summary-judgment motion

Guerra sought summary judgment on all claims except her ADA Title IV claim and also asked the court to eliminate several affirmative defenses. The court denied judgment on her claims because disputed facts remained about whether she had a qualifying disability at the time of the October 2021 incident. In particular, the evidence differed about how her conditions affected major life activities at that time and about her ability to communicate and make informed decisions about her medical care.

The court granted Guerra’s motion as to Affirmative Defense Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 19, and 26, and dismissed those defenses. The court denied her motion in all other respects.

Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment

The court granted the defendants’ motion as to Guerra’s request for prospective relief under ADA Title III and the Unruh Act. Because CHOMP had rescinded the challenged visitor policy in 2023, there was no existing policy for the court to enjoin. The court also found no reasonable expectation that the same October 2021 policy would recur. The court dismissed the ADA Title III claim because the ADA provides only injunctive relief for that claim. Guerra’s claim for damages under the Unruh Act remained.

The defendants’ motion also sought judgment on all remaining claims, and Guerra did not dispute dismissal of her ADA Title IV claim. The court dismissed the ADA Title IV claim and denied the defendants’ motion as to the remaining state-law claims.

The court found disputed facts about whether Guerra had a qualifying disability under the California Disabled Persons Act and the Unruh Act. It also found disputed facts about whether CHOMP denied her an accommodation and whether the approximately three-hour delay was excessive. The evidence differed about Guerra’s condition during the visit, so a jury—not the court—would need to assess credibility and weigh the competing evidence.

Disposition

The court terminated as moot the defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer. It granted in part and denied in part Guerra’s summary-judgment motion, dismissing the specified affirmative defenses. It granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ cross-motion, dismissing Guerra’s ADA Title III and Title IV claims and her claim for injunctive relief under the Unruh Act, while allowing her remaining state-law claims to continue under supplemental jurisdiction.