Case 9:19-cv-80825-DMM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2019 Page 1 of 8

UM TED STATES DISTRICT CO URT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CaseNo.19-80825-CIV-M m DLEBRO O>

JENNTER QUASHA,onbehalfofher
son,H.Q.,aminor,
Plaintiff,

CITY OF PALM BEA CH GARDEN S,

FLO RJD A ,

Defendant.
/
O R D ER D ENY IN G PR ELIM IN A RY INJUN CT IO N

THIS CAUSE com es before the Courton Plaintiffs Expedited M otion for Prelim ino

Injtmction,filedAugust5,2019byPlnintifflenniferQllnqha((tM s.Q11a.
qha''),onbehalfofherson,
H.Q.(DE 12).OnAugust20,2019,DefendantCityofPalm BeachGardens,Florida($1theCity'')
filedaResponse(DE 24),towllichPlaintiffrepliedonAugust21,2019(DE 26).Afterconducting
athorough review ofthe record,Iwilldenythem otion.

BA CK G R O U ND

Tllisisacaseaboutwhether,tmdertheAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct42U.S.C.j12101
(CtADA''),theCityshouldbeenjoined9om sellingpeanutsatoneofitsparksduetoH.Q.'Speanut
atlergy.Specitkally,PlaintiffseekstoenjointheCity9om s'
ellingpeanutsattheCit'
y'srecmation
facilityatGrdensPazkorïdaysthatH.Q.isplayingT-Ba1l.(DE 12 at1).
H.Q.isasix-yeaz-old boywithttsevereallergiestotreenutsandpeanuts.''(DE 12 at2).
Inthefallof2018,H.Q.beganplayingT-Ba1l.(DE 12at5).M s.QllnKha,H.Q.'Smother,became
concemedthatH.Q.wouldhavean allergicreaction d'lringaT-Ballgameaspeanutshellswere
scattered throughoutthe dugout.(DE 12 at5).W hile the som ce ofthese peanuts cnnnotbe
Case 9:19-cv-80825-DMM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2019 Page 2 of 8

defmitively determined, Plaintiff assumes that they came primarily 9om the Garden's Park

concessionstand,wherepeanutsaresoldintheshell.(DE 12at5).
In the2018se%on,M s.Quashavoicedherconcem saboutH.Q.'Spossibleexposlzreto
peanutsin thedugout.Asaresult,the City agreedthat:

(1)Thqdugoutbeswepteachdaypriortothefirstuseoftheday;(2)a11ofH.Q.'SFallT-
ballgnmesbescheduledastheflrstgmneofeverygameday;and(3)thepark notsellany'
peanutstmtiltheconclusion ofH.Q.'Sgnmes.
'
,

(DE 12at6).Basedonthatapeement,H.Q.wasabletoplayT-Balltmeventfullydudngthe2018
se%on.(DE 12at6).
In 2019,the Partiescould notreach an agreementaboutH.Q.'Saccommodations.The
Partiesdifferin theirexplanationforthisdisagreement.Plaintiffallegesthatsherequested H.Q.
be transferred to a tenm w141his friend,whose parentsare a physician's % sistantand a nurse

practitioner,and therefore could administerH.Q.'Sepi-pen ifnecessary.(DE 12 at6,

'Qumsha
Declaration at! 27).According to Plnintië the City refused thiskansfer,refused to continue
sweeping thedugouts,and refused to stop salejofpeanutsduring H.Q.'Sgames.(DE 12 at7,
'
Qu%haDeclarationat!28).M legedly,theCityproposedthatH.Q.couldtransfer9om theCity's
GardensPark League to the nearby North Palm Beach Leqgue.Id.Plaintifffound the propôsed
' .
.

kansferinadequate msI
EH.Q.doesnothave any friendsthatplay in tlw league in North Palm
i

Beach.''(DE 12at8).Further,Plaintiffwantsto enstlrethatherson can play çtin theirowncity.''

(DE 12at8).
Defendantdeniesthe majority of these allegatiorisand offers in supportthe lmsworn
declazations ofDanielPdeto,D eputy Leisure Services A dm iniskator,and Stephen Stepp,Deputy

CityManager.First,theCitystatçsthattheyneverrequested H.Q.kansfertoanotherleague,but
simplytotheNorth Palm BeachPark 1.3 milesaway from theGardensPark.(DE 24 at13,18;

2
Case 9:19-cv-80825-DMM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2019 Page 3 of 8

PrietoDeclarationat!!5-6;SteppDeclarationat:10).AtNorthPalm BeachPark,H.Q.wouldbe
Stonthesnmeteam,withllisfriends,inthesnmeexactleague.''(DE 24at13*
,PrietoDeclazationat
!9;SteppDeclration at!12).Indeed,çithecityofNorthPalm BeachdidnothaveastandaloneT-
BallLeague.TheNorth Palm Beach teamsplayed in the gpalm Beach GardensYouth Athletic
Associationl.''(Pdeto Declaration at:6).Further,the City allegesthatifH.Q.remained atthe
GardensPark the City intended to continue sw eeping the dugout,w hich ithad done even before

H.Q.beganplaying.(DE 24at13;Stepp Declarationat!14).

Given theParties'inabilityto reach an agreem entregarding appropdate accomm odations

forH.Q.,PlnintifffiledthislawsuitonJtme21,2019allegingthatDefendantwmsviolatingArticle
11oftheADA.(DE 1).'Fhecomplaintseeks$tapermanentinjunction enjoining (the Cityq9om
continuingitsdiscriminatorypractices,allowingH.Q.toparticipateinitsprogrnm inapeanut-gee
environment,and awarding gM s.) Quashw on behalf of her son,H.Q.'S damages,gand) her
attorney'sfees,costs,and expensesincurred in thisaction.'' (DE 1at7).On August5,2019,
Plaintifffledthisexpeditedmotionforpreliminary injunctionbecausethe2019T-BZIse%on is
beginning in tlmid-september''and H.Q.willbe tmable to participate ifthese issues remain
unsolved.(DE 12at21).
LEG AT,STA N D AR D

A courtmay grantJapreliminary injtmction when themoving partydemonskates: (1)a

substantiallikelihoodthatplnintiffwillsucceedon themedts;(2)asubstantialthreatthatplaintiff
4
'

willslzfferirreparableinjury ifapreliminary injunction isnotgranted;(3)theO eatened injury

outweighsthe hnnn a preliminary injunction may cause the defendant;and (4)the grantofa
preliminaryinjunctionwillnotdisservethepublicinterest.Siegelv.fepore,234F.3d 1163,1176
(11+ Cir.2000)(en banc).ttBecause a preliminazy injunction is1m1extraordinary and &astic
Case 9:19-cv-80825-DMM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2019 Page 4 of 8

remedy,'itsgrantisthe exception ratherthan therule,and plaintiffmustcleazly can'y theburden

ofpersuasion.''United Statesv.fambert,695F.2d 536,539 (11th Ciy.1983)(quoting Texasv.

SeatrainInternational,S.A.,518F.2d 175,179(5thCir.1975).
DISCU SSIO N

Title 11of the A DA requires,generally,thatçtno individualshallbe discdm inated against

on the basis of disability in the fu11and equalenjoyment ofthe goods,services,facilities,

privileges,advantages,oraccommodationsofany placeofpublicaccommodation. 42U.S.C.j
12182(a).Discrimination isdefinedasdenyingçtonthebasisofadisabilityordisabilities...the
opporttm ity to participate in or benetk f'
rom a good, service, facility, pdvilege, advantage,or

accom m odation that is not equal to that alffbrded to other individuals.'' 42 U .S.C .

12l82(b)(1)(A)(ii).Toavoid discrimination inviolation oftheADA,publicentitiesarerequired

to ççm ake re% onable m odifcations in policies, practices, or procedures'' to enstlre non-

discrim ination,so long as providing such accom m odations w ould not Ctfundnm entally alter the

natuze ofsuch goods,services,facilities,pdvileges,advantages,or accom m odations.''42 U .S.C.''

j 12182(2)(A)(ii).
W hen determ ining w hether a requested m odification'is required,the Suprem e Courthms

establishedthatthefçthreeinquidesare:(1)whethertherequestedmodificationisSreasonable';(2)
whethertherequestedmodification isçnecessary'forthedisabledindividual;and (3)whetherthe
requested.
m odifcation would ifundnm'
entally alterthenature'ofthepublicaccomm odation.''W.f.

by d:throughD.L.v.WaltDim eyptzrkç& Resàrts.,900F.3d 1270,1293(11th Cir.2018).çi'l-he

plaintiff bears the burden of proving . . .his requested m odification is both Creasonable' and

1Forthe pup oses ofthis Order, Iassllm e w ithoutdeciding thatthe sale ofpeanutsatG ardens
Park concessionsconstitutesan action by apublicentity.
4
Case 9:19-cv-80825-DMM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2019 Page 5 of 8

inecessary.'''Id at1292 (111 Cir.2018)(quotingPGA Tour,Inc.v'

.Martin,532U.S.661,683

n.38(2001)).
Here,Plnintiffdoesnotm eetherburden ofproving a substantiallikelihood ofsucçessas

tothereasonablenessornecessityoftheaccommodation soughtintllisPreliminaryInjunction.z
A . R easonableness

ForpuposesofanalyzingtheappropriàtenessofaPreliminarylnjtmction,1willfirstconsider
whetherPlaintiffhmsdem onstrated a substantiallikelihood ofsuccesson the m edtswith respect

to re% onableness.1fmd thatPlaintiffhasnotmetherofblzrden regarding the reasonablenessof

herproposed accom modation.Foran accomm odatioflto be re% onable,the Plnintiffmustshow

'

thatitwould enable them to perform the Lask forwhich theyrequirethe accommodation.H olly v.

Claiçson Indus.,L.L.C.,492 F.3d 1247, 1262 (11th Cir.2007) (fmding that the proposed
accomm odation was notreasonable as it would not enable Plaintiff to pedbrm the essential

flmctions of her job, which was the reason.she required an accommodation).Here, the
accommodationPlnintiffseekswouldstillnotmakeT-Ba11satkforH.Q.AsPlnintiffrequestsonly
thatpeanutsalesbestoppedon daysthatH.Q.isnoiplaying T-Ba11,fansand playersinthepark
'could stillbuy peanutsand skew theirshellsaround thepark on any otherday.Also,individuals

would stillbe allowéd to bring in peanuts on theirown,even ifthey could notbuy them f'
rom

'
concessions,and would likely stilldrop the shells on the g'
rotmd,as thatis a custom atbaseball

gnmes.Thus,itwould appearquitelikelythat,regardlessoftheaccommodation,H.Q.would still

W hile Plaintiff's counseliscorrectthata public entity bears the burden ofproving an

accommodationisaçtfundnmentalalteration,''Brownv.Districtofcolumbia,No.17-7152,2019
U.S.App.LEXIS20058,*13-*14 (D.C.Cir.July5,2019),thisshowingisonlynecessaryonce
e
Plmnt
.
iffhasestablished asubstantiallikelihood ofsuccessasto remsonablenessand necessity.
W altD isney pcrkç(f7Resorts,900 F.3d at 1292.A s Plaintiffhasnotm ade such a show ing,I
need notreach theissueofwhetherthe accom modation Plaintiffseekswould beafundnm ental
alteration.
Case 9:19-cv-80825-DMM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2019 Page 6 of 8

beexposedto peanutsand atrisk ofan allergicreaction.Afterall,itisnottheconductofH.Q.'S

team thatconcernsH.Q.'Sparents(1 facttheyinsistH.Q.remain withthatteam),itisothersthat
scatterpeanuts in the dugoutbeforeH.Q.arrives.Asthere isno provision forclean-up in the
requestedinjunction,thebehaviorofpark-goersonotherdayswouldstillaffectH.Q.Therefore,1
cnnnotconclude atthisstagethatPlaintiffissubstantially likelyto succeed on themeritsbecause,

ontherecord asitstandsnow,Plaintifffailstodemonskatethatthisaccomm odation isreasonably

relatedtoallowingH.Q.tosafelyplayT-Ba11.ThisaloneissuffkienttodefeatPlaintiffsrequest
foraPreliminaryInjlmction.
A. Necessity

Even ifPlaintiffhas notdem onskated herburden atthisstage as to remsonableness,the

requested Preliminary Injunction would still fail becàuse Plaintiff hms not demonskated a
substantial likelihood of success as to the necessity of the requested accom m odation. For an

accom m odation to be necessary,itm ustprovide disabled individuals w ith a çslike experience''to

non-disabled individuals.However,where multiple accommodations would accomplisé that

objective,çtfacilitiesarenotrequiredtomakethepreferredaccommodationofplaintiffs'choice,''
WaltDisney fkrkç drResorts,900 F.3d at 1296 (111 Cir.2018).Indeed,ttthe reasonable
modificationreqllirementcanbesatissedirlvariousways,''notjustinthemnnnerthatthePlaintiff
requests.Tennesseev.fane,541U.S.509,511(2004).TheADA alsodoesnotttrequireapublic
entityto employanyand allm eans''to accomm odateadisability.Bircollv.M iami-DadeC@.,480

F.3d 1072,1082 (111 Cir.2007).Nordoe.

san accommodation need to eliminateallçGdifticulty''
forthedisabled individualortheirffamily.WaltDisney JkrkçdrResorts,900 F.3d at1296 (111
Cir.2018).

6
Case 9:19-cv-80825-DMM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2019 Page 7 of 8

W hen M s.Quasha initially raised liercöncernsregarding H.Q.'S2019 season,theCity

proposedthatH.Q.play111.3milesaway''9om theGardensParkatNorthPalm BeachPark,where
hewouldhavethetEsameschedule,withthesam eteam,with thesamefriendsand againstthesarrfe

opponents.''3(DE 24at18).PlayingattltisParkwouldaccommodateH.Q.'Sdisabilityas,peran
'

emailâom thePalm Beach GgrdensYouth AtveticAssociation,itis1$amuch smallerlocation

and w e have a lotm ore controloverwhatisbroughtinto the facility and can betterV ensure thatw e
,

areableto providehim asafepeanut-geeenvironment.''(DE 15-2,at2).Although itisnotthe

accom m odation w hich Plaintiffrequests,itappears to m e thatitw ould be a reasonable one and

would provide H.Q:with an experience that is,in a1l significantrespects,identicalto the

experiences ofotherT-ballplayers.The AD A does notrequire thatPlaintiff's proposed solution

beinstitm ed,onlythatH.Q.enjoyaSçlikeexperience.''
The issue ofwhether an accomm odation is necessary is tiinherently fact-intensive''and

Stlargely dependsoncontext.''fiesev.lndianRiverC@.Hosp.Dist,701F.3d 334,342(11+ Cir.

2012).n erefore,Irecogzlizethatthisissuemaybesubjecttoadifferentanalysisastherecordin
this case develops m ore fully,and, in theory,1cbuld decidethisparticularissue differently ata
.

laterstageintheseproceedings.However,basedontherecordbeforeme,IbeterminethatPlaintiff
has not met her blzrden of establishing a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and

thereforenoPreliminaryInjtmctionshouldbeissued.
CO N C LU SIO N

Based on the foregoing,itisO RDERED AND ADJUDGED thatPlaintiY sM otion for

PreliminaryInjunction(DE 12)isDEM ED.

3Plaintiffhmsnotshown thatthisofferdid nottake place, and in factseem sto concede asm uch
inherresponsetothereply.(DE 26at5-6).
7
Case 9:19-cv-80825-DMM Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2019 Page 8 of 8

SIGNED in Cham bersatW estPalm Beach,Florida,this da fSeptember,2019.

O LD M .M IDDLEBROOKS
UN ITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT

Copiesto:CounselofRecord