In Pro Per Disabled Plaintiff Has Case Dismissed and Suffers Adverse $422,487.04 Costs Award Against Him.
The next case, although involving convoluted and far from mundane facts, should be of interest to dog lovers, and to tooth and claw litigators. As far as our blog is concerned, it reminds all plaintiffs—especially in pro pers—to be seriously prepared for trial. If not, you might find yourself subject to exposure for significant costs submitted by the winning opponent.
Scipio, St. Bernard acquired by Orville Wright in March, 1917.
Library of Congress.
In Stites v. Promus Hotel Corp., Case No. B199983 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 28, 2009) (unpublished), a disabled in pro per plaintiff filed a lawsuit against two hotels claiming they denied him accommodations based on physical disability. He sued primarily under the state Unruh Act (Civil Code sections 51 and 54). The case was stayed quite a while during the pendency of some federal court proceedings. After the stay was lifted, plaintiff added claims by which the gravamen of his dispute was that the hotels refused accommodations because of his use of a service dog or by requiring a deposit because of the dog. A trial date was set for May 30, 2007. (Plaintiff was a law school graduate, but not admitted to the bar.) Eventually, the case was dismissed because plaintiff was not ready for trial, a dismissal eventually affirmed.
The trial court also awarded $422,487.04 costs in favor of hotels. Much of this consisted of litigation support firm expenses involving document production and discovery referee’s charges incurred in extensive pretrial discovery battles. However, plaintiff failed to specify the errors in the costs award. This proved fatal. The court growled: “Tedious and lengthy though it might have been, Stites should have specified the costs he believed were improperly awarded if he wished this court to so rule. This court rules on specific claims of error: It does not declare general themes of law, then vacate judgments and remand because errors might have been made. By offering a broad general argument without specifically enumerating the allegedly improper costs awarded to Promus, Stites has failed to meet his burden on appeal of demonstrating which specific portions of the costs award he claims to have been erroneously awarded.” (Slip Opn., at p. 22.)
DOG BLOG WATCH—Plaintiff’s service dog, Duke (who weighed close to 120 pounds), accompanied him to court. The unpublished opinion does state that the trial court admonished plaintiff that Duke needed to “sit down and stay in one place, he cannot wander around the courtroom” on several occasions. Duke did remain during voir dire. Plaintiff needed dog coach Cesar Milan. Duke’s wandering continued, with judicial admonishments emanating from the trial judge along the way. Finally, Duke outstayed his welcome—he stood up and approached a prospective juror in a way that made her jump up, scurry into a corner, and begin to cry. (Plaintiff did not show up the following day, and the case was ultimately dismissed.)
BLOG UNDERVIEW—Co-contributor Mike noticed that Jonathan Solish (now with Bryan Cave) was one of the successful attorneys representing hotels. Mike was on opposite sides of an appeal involving Mr. Solish in the early 1990s. Mike sends greetings to Jon.