Martinez v. County of Alameda

Background

Lisamaria Martinez, who is blind, brought a disability-rights action against the County of Alameda, Melissa Wilk, Eva He, and Maria Laura Briones. The action concerns Martinez’s March 29, 2019 visit to the County Clerk-Recorder’s Office to file a fictitious business name statement for her small business. After a clerk told Martinez that corrections were needed, Martinez requested assistance making them. According to the amended complaint, the clerk and supervisor Maria Laura Briones declined to help under a policy that treated the form as a legal document that had to be completed by the business owner.

The amended complaint asserts claims under Title II and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act, California Civil Code section 11135, the California Disabled Persons Act, and for declaratory relief. The opinion states that the court had previously granted summary judgment to the defendants on Martinez’s Title V claim. The amended complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and statutory damages under the California Disabled Persons Act. A jury trial was scheduled for March 25, 2024.

Motion to Bifurcate

Martinez asked the court to divide the trial into two phases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b). She proposed that a jury first decide whether the defendants violated her rights by failing to provide effective assistance or another suitable auxiliary aid or service in 2019, including issues related to damages. If the jury found for her, she proposed a second phase before the court concerning current and future conditions and possible injunctive relief.

The defendants opposed bifurcation. The opinion states that the County had computer kiosks at the office and, beginning around October 2022, reserved and equipped one for people with disabilities with screen-reader software and a fillable version of the form. The court considered evidence about the aids available to Martinez in 2019 distinct from evidence about later changes, but it also concluded that the same evidence could apply to both the alleged 2019 violation and whether later modifications addressed any continuing barrier.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that bifurcation is an exception to the usual practice of resolving an action in one proceeding. It considered the separability of the issues, judicial economy, prejudice, and possible juror confusion.

On separability, the court agreed that the jury’s findings about discrimination in 2019 could eliminate the need to consider injunctive relief. But the court also decided that the jury should consider whether the County’s later modifications reasonably removed the alleged barriers. The court did not decide whether the jury’s findings on that later issue would be advisory or binding; it stated that the parties could address that question in post-trial motions if necessary.

On judicial economy, the court concluded that bifurcation could require the same witnesses, testimony, recordings, documents, and other evidence to be presented again. It therefore found that two proceedings would duplicate evidence and use judicial time and resources inefficiently. On prejudice and juror confusion, the court found that instructions could explain that later modifications were not relevant to liability for the 2019 events and could distinguish the two categories of evidence. The court also considered the defendants’ concern that bifurcation would increase litigation costs and delay resolution.

Disposition

The court DENIED Martinez’s motion to bifurcate. This order concerned the organization of the trial and did not decide the ultimate merits of Martinez’s remaining claims.