Fernandez v. Frank

2 Citing cases

  1. Wilds v. Akhi LLC

    1:21-cv-142-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla. Jul. 29, 2022)

    In Abbot v. Town of Salem, No. 05-cv-127-SM, 2006 WL 276704, at *3 (D.N.H. Feb. 2, 2006), the district court concluded that mall “security service” was not a “place of public accommodation.” See also Fernandez v. Frank, No. 10-00573, 2012 Wl 1004322, at *6 (D. Haw. Mar. 23, 2012) (dismissing ADA claim against security guard where there was no evidence that the guard owned, leased, or operated a place of public accommodation).

  2. Rickmyer v. Abm Sec. Servs., Inc.

    Civil No. 15-4221 (JRT/FLN) (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2016)   Cited 14 times
    Denying motion for referral to the FBA Pro Se Project framed as ADA accommodations request

    The Court therefore has no basis to construe Rickmyer's complaint as alleging that ABM leases or operates the A-Ramp, and this is fatal to his § 12182(a) claim. See, e.g., Fernandez v. Frank, No. 10-00573, 2012 WL 1004322, at *6 (D. Haw. Mar. 23, 2012) (finding that a plaintiff's § 12182(a) claim was not viable because it was based on "alleged misconduct by a security guard" and there was no evidence that the security guard owned, leased, or operated a place of public accommodation), aff'd, 548 F. App'x 504 (9th Cir. 2013); Abbott v. Town of Salem, No. 05-127, 2006 WL 276704, at *5 (D.N.H. Feb. 2, 2006) (finding that the plaintiff's § 12182(a) claim was not viable because the defendant "operates a security service; it does not operate a place of public accommodation"). Rickmyer also objects to the Magistrate Judge's statement that "[t]here is no indication from the amended complaint that the security guard who asked Rickmyer to continue walking had any indication that Rickmyer is disabled."