Romero v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 09 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JESSICA ROMERO, individually and on No. 14-56353
behalf of all others similarly situated;
MICHAEL DOUGHERTY, individually D.C. No. 2:14-cv-03456-DSF-
and on behalf of all others similarly AGR
situated,
Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM*
v.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT
AUTHORITY, a corporation, AKA LA
County MTA; ARTHUR T. LEAHY,
Chief Executive Officer of the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transit
Authority, in his individual and official
capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 2, 2015
Pasadena, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Before: REINHARDT, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs Jessica Romero and Michael Dougherty sued the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transit Authority (“MTA”) and its Chief Executive Officer, Arthur
Leahy, alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),
42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12165, and various other provisions of federal and California law.
They appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and affirm.
1. The district court did not clearly err in finding that the plaintiffs have not
demonstrated a likelihood of ongoing or future irreparable injury, especially in light
of the evidence of measures taken by the MTA in response to the settlement of a prior
ADA lawsuit. See Midgett v. Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or., 254 F.3d 846, 850
(9th Cir. 2001). There was no abuse of discretion in the denial of the preliminary
injunction. See Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th
Cir. 2011); Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, 636 F.3d 1166, 1174 (9th Cir. 2011).
2. The plaintiffs also seek review of the denial of their class certification
motion, but they never filed the required petition to appeal pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(f). There is no basis for the exercise of pendent appellate
jurisdiction because denial of the preliminary injunction neither depended upon, nor
2
inevitably resolved, the issues in the class certification denial. See Cunningham v.
Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1284-86 (9th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
3