Fritz v. Michigan, State of et al

BRIEF

W.D. Mich.June 27, 2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION SUSAN FRITZ, Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 1:17-cv-00128 v. HON. PAUL L. MALONEY STATE OF MICHIGAN; STATE COURT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE; and ALLEGAN COUNTY, MICHIGAN Defendants. _________________________________________________________________________ Joseph P. Vredevelt (P69659) Andrew Brege Attorney for Plaintiff Johnson, Rosati, Schultz & Joppich, P.C. Po Box 310192 Attorney for Defendant Allegan County Houston, Texas 77231 822 Centennial Way, Ste. 270 Tel./Fax: (888) 831-2357 Lansing, Michigan 48917 cdlsmiami@gmail.com (517) 886-3800 cdlshouston@gmail.com abrege@jrsjlaw.com _________________________________________________________________________ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ALLEGAN COUNTY’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT ** ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ** Case 1:17-cv-00128-PLM-RSK ECF No. 23 filed 06/27/17 PageID.180 Page 1 of 7 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………………. 2 Index of Authority …….………………………………………………………………….. 3 Statement of Facts ………………………………………………………………………... 4 Standard of Review …………………………………………………………………….... 4 Argument …………………………………………………………………………………. 4 I. Allegan County’s Liability ………………………………………………………...5 II. Plaintiff has properly plead in her Second Amended Complaint that she has suffers from an invisible disability recognized under the ADA for which she requested reasonable accommodations and was denied, causing her to be excluded from the judicial proceedings of which she was a litigant. …………..... 5 Conclusion and Relief Requested ……………………………………………………….. 6 Case 1:17-cv-00128-PLM-RSK ECF No. 23 filed 06/27/17 PageID.181 Page 2 of 7 3 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases Bovee v. Coopers & Lybrand C.P.A., 272 F.3d 356, 360 (6th Cir. 2001) ……………4 Statutes 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2) ………………………………………………………………...5 Case 1:17-cv-00128-PLM-RSK ECF No. 23 filed 06/27/17 PageID.182 Page 3 of 7 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on May 16, 2017 (ECF No. 14, PageID. 97- 105), alleging that the State of Michigan as well as the Allegan County violated the rights guaranteed to her through the Americans with Disability Act (“ADA”) as well as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Specifically, alleging that the ADA policies and procedures for the lower courts were non-existent and led to arbitrary and capricious administration of ADA accommodation requests made by Plaintiff, the denials of which caused her to be excluded from participation in the court proceedings of which she was a litigant. On May 30, 2017, Allegan County served Plaintiff with its Motion to Dismiss on the merits, alleging that: (1) Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act; and (2) the State of Michigan is the sole responsible party to this action on the basis that Michigan is a unified-court with the procedures of the lower courts being dictated and/or directed by the State of Michigan’s Court Administrative Services Office. ARGUMENT A. Standard of Review Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 12(b)(6), when determining the merit of a motion seeking dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and accept all factual allegations as true. Bovee v. Coopers & Lybrand C.P.A., 272 F.3d 356, 360 (6th Cir. 2001). The Court may take judicial notice of any integral document in the underlying record in its consideration of the Motion. Case 1:17-cv-00128-PLM-RSK ECF No. 23 filed 06/27/17 PageID.183 Page 4 of 7 5 B. Analysis I. Allegan County’s Liability Plaintiff denies the arguments put forth by Allegan County that is not liable for its violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA due to the fact that the State of Michigan is a unified court, and therefore, the State is the only liable defendant in this action. Although Plaintiff agrees that the State of Michigan is liable, that liability also includes Allegan County. Title II, 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1) of the ADA defines a “public agency” as any State or local government, thus, making it applicable in this matter to both the State of Michigan as well as Kalamazoo County equally. Both entities have a duty under federal law to properly implement and enforce ADA requirements to ensure qualified persons are not excluded from services, activities, or programs of the public entities. Regardless of the State of Michigan’s ultimate control over the administrative policies of the lower courts, Allegan County has a duty to abide by the requirements of the ADA and failed to do so when it failed to have an ADA policy in place and/or implement a non-arbitrary ADA procedure that would ensure that the administration of accommodations request wasn’t capricious in nature and followed all of the requirements of the ADA. II. Plaintiff Has Stated a Valid Claim for Which Relief Can Be Granted Plaintiff alleged in her First Amended Complaint that she suffers from a “diagnosed and qualifying invisible disability” which limits her major life activities of thinking, talking, concentrating, hearing, retrieving information, etc. as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2) (Doc. No. 14, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, PageID. 100 ¶16 and17). Plaintiff further alleged that Allegan County granted some of her accommodation requests (thus determining itself that Plaintiff had a a true disability needing of reasonable accommodation) but Case 1:17-cv-00128-PLM-RSK ECF No. 23 filed 06/27/17 PageID.184 Page 5 of 7 6 thereafter caused Plaintiff to proceed in the litigation without her accommodations in place and denying Plaintiff’s request to have the accommodation previously granted. (Doc. No. 14, Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, PageID. 102, ¶25). Allegan County now asks this Court to look into the lower court transcripts and records in an attempt to have this Court determine on its own whether Plaintiffs did actually suffer from a disability and if accommodation(s) were necessary. Plaintiff objects to this on the basis that it would require this Court to litigate genuine matters of fact to be determined only by a jury. Further, Allegan County argues that Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory at best and not sufficient to state a claim. Plaintiff objects, however, allowance of this Court to allow Plaintiff to amend the complaint once more, would allow Plaintiff the opportunity to plead those matters with specificity and detail the various occasions Allegan County denied Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA and how each instance denied Plaintiff equal access to the court proceedings or otherwise contributed to the same. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED Reading Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff and taking all factual allegations as true, this Court should find that Plaintiff has demonstrated that she has properly plead a cognizable claim under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act and deny Allegan County’s Motion to Dismiss. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks leave from this Court to amend the First Amended Complaint in order to plead with more specificity to address Allegan County’s argument that Plaintiff’s allegations are merely conclusory and do not properly state a claim for which relief can be granted. Case 1:17-cv-00128-PLM-RSK ECF No. 23 filed 06/27/17 PageID.185 Page 6 of 7 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was served upon all parties and counsel to this matter on this 27th day of June, 2017 via CM/ECF as well as United States Mail. Dated: June 27, 2017 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Joseph P. Vredevelt Joseph P. Vredevelt (P69659) Attorney for Plaintiff PO Box 310192 Houston, Texas 77231 Tel./Fax: (888) 831-2357 cdlsmiami@gmail.com cdlshouston@gmail.com Case 1:17-cv-00128-PLM-RSK ECF No. 23 filed 06/27/17 PageID.186 Page 7 of 7