Rush v. Sport Chalet, Inc., No. 12-57253 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, who was wheelchair-bound and physically disabled, alleged that her access at three retail stores in a shopping mall was obstructed. Plaintiff settled her claims with a tenant defendant. Thereafter, the district court sua sponte issued an order that dismissed three defendants, concluding that the defendants were improperly joined because Plaintiff’s complaint did not allege that her injuries arose out of the same transaction or occurrence. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (1) as originally filed, the landlord defendant was properly joined because it shared the common transaction or occurrence of a landlord-tenant relationship with the tenant defendant that settled with Plaintiff; and (2) the district court abused its discretion by dismissing rather than severing Plaintiff’s complaint against the two retail defendants without evaluating the prejudice to Plaintiff. Remanded.
Court Description: Joinder. The panel reversed the district court’s order dismissing three defendants after holding that they were improperly joined in an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The panel held that, as originally filed, two defendants were properly joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) because they shared the common transaction or occurrence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The plaintiff settled with the tenant, but the plaintiff retained viable claims against the landlord. Accordingly, the panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of the landlord defendant. The panel held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing rather than severing the plaintiff’s complaint against two other defendants without evaluating the prejudice to the plaintiff. Following other circuits, the panel held that district courts that dismiss rather than sever must conduct a prejudice analysis, including loss of otherwise timely claims if new suits are blocked by statutes of limitations. RUSH V. SPORT CHALET 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.