Gastelum v. Blue Diamond Hospitality LLC

Background

Fernando Gastelum, who has a prosthetic leg and uses a wheelchair and/or cane, brought a single claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He alleged that he encountered an accessibility barrier at the Hampton Inn & Suites Gilroy: an entrance-area passenger loading zone allegedly lacked a marked access aisle required by the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

The court previously denied Gastelum’s motion for summary judgment and granted Blue Diamond Hospitality LLC’s motion for summary judgment. It found that the hotel did not have a passenger loading zone, so Gastelum could not establish an ADA claim based on the absence of a marked access aisle. The court also declined to exercise jurisdiction over Gastelum’s Unruh Act claim and dismissed that claim. Judgment was entered for Blue Diamond on June 12, 2023.

Motion and legal standard

Gastelum moved for a new trial or to alter the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. Because no trial had occurred, the court explained that a Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial was unavailable and considered the request under Rule 59(e), which governs motions to reconsider or change a judgment.

Under Rule 59(e), reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to newly discovered evidence, a change in controlling law, or clear error. The court also stated that a party may not use such a motion to present arguments or evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier.

Gastelum’s arguments

Gastelum asked the court to change the summary judgment by denying Blue Diamond’s motion. He argued that the existence of a passenger loading zone was a disputed material fact and identified four alleged design features: a curb cutout, a porte cochere (a covered structure extending from the hotel entrance), lighting under the porte cochere, and tile flooring that differed from the surrounding asphalt.

He also argued that the court should not have relied on testimony from Eric Gebhardt because Gebhardt was not the hotel’s original architect. Gastelum similarly challenged the credibility and qualifications of Gary Layman’s testimony because Layman was not the original architect. Gastelum further argued that people in fact loaded and unloaded in the area, suggesting that it had been designed for that purpose.

Court’s reasoning

The court rejected the argument that it had overlooked the alleged design features. It explained that the 2010 ADA Standards require passenger loading zones at medical-care and long-term-care facilities, valet-parking facilities, and mechanical-access parking garages. Other facilities, including hotels, are not required to provide passenger loading zones, but a voluntarily provided zone must comply with the standards. The standards treat only areas specifically designed or designated for passenger loading as passenger loading zones.

The parties agreed that the area was not designated as a passenger loading zone. The court had considered the photographs, declarations, and other materials submitted with the summary-judgment motions. It found that Gastelum had provided only a conclusory statement that there was a passenger loading zone and had not identified or described the alleged design features in his summary-judgment briefing. The court also noted that Blue Diamond submitted declarations from Gebhardt, the hotel’s general manager, and Layman, a licensed contractor and California Certified Access Specialist. Layman stated that there were no design features, signs, or markings indicating that the area was a passenger loading zone and opined that its main function was to allow people to check into the hotel while protected from the weather.

The court found Layman’s testimony both reliable and relevant. It stated that neither Layman nor Gebhardt had to be the hotel’s original architect to comment on whether the hotel had a passenger loading zone. Gastelum had an opportunity to present evidence countering their testimony but did not provide opposing expert testimony. The court therefore found no factual or legal error in considering their declarations.

The court also held that Gastelum could not use the Rule 59 motion to raise the design-feature argument for the first time. Finally, it concluded that disagreement with the earlier decision was not enough to establish the highly demanding standard of clear error. Gastelum had not provided evidence sufficient to refute Blue Diamond’s evidence or shown a basis for reconsideration.

Disposition

The court denied Gastelum’s motion for a new trial and/or to alter the judgment. This order addressed the post-judgment motion; it did not change the earlier summary judgment for Blue Diamond or the dismissal of the Unruh Act claim.