United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
JOSIE BADGER and EMILY GELLATLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
ADVANCE STORES CO., INC. d/b/a ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. MITCHELL United States Magistrate Judge
Presently before the Court is a motion (ECF No. 6), filed by
the Defendant, Advance Stores Co., Inc., d/b/a Advance Auto
Parts (“Advance Stores”), to have this case
reassigned pursuant to Local Rule 40(D). For the reasons that
follow, the motion will be denied.
Josie Badger and Angela Hunter, filed this action,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
against Advance Stores on December 16, 2016, alleging
violations of Title III of the Americans With Disabilities
Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 to 12189 (ADA).
Specifically, they allege that the facilities at Advance
Stores are not fully accessible to and independently usable
by individuals who use wheelchairs for mobility, as they do,
because of various barriers in the parking lots and along the
paths of travel. They also challenge Defendant's
corporate policies and practices, which she contends allow
access barriers to recur at Defendant's facilities even
after they have been remediated.
Civil Cover Sheet that accompanied the Complaint, Plaintiffs
checked the box indicating that this case was related to
Heinzl v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Stores, Inc.,
No. 14-1455, another case involving alleged ADA Title III
violations in parking lots and corporate policies and
practices affecting plaintiffs with mobility disabilities.
(ECF No. 1-1.) As a result, the case was assigned to the
December 29, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for reassignment
(ECF No. 6). On January 23, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a brief in
opposition (ECF No. 9). On January 30, 2017, Defendant filed
a reply brief (ECF No. 10).
amended effective November 1, 2016, the Local Rules of this
Court provide that:
time of filing any civil or criminal action or entry of
appearance or filing of the pleading or motion of any nature
by defense counsel, as the case may be, counsel shall
indicate on an appropriate form whether the action is related
to any other pending or previously terminated actions in this
Court. Relatedness shall be determined as follows:
1. all criminal actions arising out of the same criminal
transaction or series of transactions are deemed related;
2. civil actions are deemed related when an action filed
relates to property included in another action, or involves
the same issue of fact, or it grows out of the same
transaction as another action, or involves the validity or
infringement of a patent involved in another action; and
3. all habeas corpus petitions filed by the same
individual shall be deemed related. All pro se civil
rights actions by the same individual shall be deemed
Assignment of Related Actions.
1. If the fact of relatedness is indicated on the appropriate
form at time of filing, the Clerk of Court shall assign the
case to the same Judge to whom the lower numbered related
case is assigned, who may reject the assignment if the Judge
determines that the cases are not related or the assignment
does not otherwise promote the ...