Civil Procedure II
Professor Cohen
Spring 1999
ESSAY QUESTION
In 1995, in federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan, a law suit was commenced regarding
a claim of discrimination against the disabled in access to the local courts of the City of Detroit. The
plaintiffs claimed that, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Defendants had denied access to, in
particular, Small Claims Courts where lawyers were not permitted to practice and therefore ordinary
citizens were denied their opportunity to file and win, or defend against, cases of up to $15,000.00 which
was the jurisdiction of those courts.
Their claims were several-fold. First, they said, there was no ramp into the building so that wheelchair disabled were prohibited from getting into the building. Next, they said, the elevators in the building
did not have braille settings so that sight-impaired people could not get to the sixth floor, where the small
claims court was located in Detroit. Plaintiffs claimed that many people were affected, and that injunctive
relief was called for.
In particular one of the two named plaintiffs was a wheel-chaired individual who had, several years
in the past, wanted to bring a claim in small claims court for breach of a contract she had regarding the sale
and installation of a dishwasher, which dishwasher was not working properly. She had had it repaired, after
the seller refused to do so, and was then unable to get to the court in order to sue the seller.
A second named plaintiff was a sight-impaired person having a similar law suit of a
personal injury nature where she had been physically jostled and insulted by an angry driver on a
local bus when she tried to board with her guide dog, resulting in her having to go to her
physician for her injuries and increased reaction to stress.
The action regarding the small claims court was started as a class action, and the court did indeed
certify the action. After a long trial, the court granted an injunction, obliging the defendants to build a ramp,
and create braille settings on the elevator. It also gave damages of $100.00 each to the named plaintiffs and all
members of the class. A motion for anew trial because the verdict as to damages was inadequate, or, in the
alternative, an additur, was denied. Judgment was entered. Appeals taken affirmed the decision.
Thereafter, in 1998, an action was brought against the same defendant as in action one above,
claiming a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, by a sight-impaired person regarding the
inadequacy of the braille settings on the elevator and claiming that she hadn't been able to file her small
claims law suit, and seeking $5,000 in damages. As well, Plaintiff has asked the Court to preclude the
Defendant from rearguing the illegality of the braille settings on the elevator.
The defendant has said that plaintiff is precluded from bringing the action because of the previous
class action, while plaintiff has said she is not. Both parties agree that if the
previous action applies, plaintiff is precluded through res judicata.
You are a law clerk for the federal judge, who has asked you for opinions: 1. as to the validity and
application of the class action to the instant matter, and 2. as to the denial of the new trial motion. As well,
the judge has asked you: 3. to research the application of collateral estoppel, in the event she were to find
that there is no preclusion against the action because of the previous class action, or be reversed on appeal as
to that issue. Since she has another clerk working on the same issues, she has asked that you organize your
opinion with your conclusion as to each of the three issues stated at the outset, and followed by your
explanation.