Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc.

974 F.3d 1030

Daniel LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.CATALINA CHANNEL EXPRESS, INC., a California Corporation; Does, 1–10, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-55136

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 7, 2020 Pasadena, California

Filed September 9, 2020

Russell Handy (argued) and Dennis Price, Center for Disability Access, San Diego, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Douglas J. Collodel (argued) and Alison K. Beanum, Clyde & Co. US LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: Mary H. Murguia and Morgan Christen, Circuit Judges, and Alvin K. Hellerstein,^* District Judge.

MURGUIA, Circuit Judge:

Daniel Lopez is confined to a wheelchair due to a disability and he alleges that he was unable to use the restroom aboard the Jet Cat Express, a passenger vessel sailing between Long Beach and Santa Catalina Island, California, because the restroom's door was too narrow to allow his wheelchair to enter. Lopez sued Catalina Channel Express, Inc. ("Catalina"), which owns and operates the vessel, under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act") for failing to widen the vessel's restroom door. The district court denied Lopez's motion for summary judgment and instead granted summary judgment to Catalina on Lopez's ADA claim. The district court also refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lopez's Unruh Act claim.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Daniel Lopez is a T-10 paraplegic, which means he is unable to walk and is dependent on a wheelchair for mobility. In April 2017, Lopez returned from Catalina Island to Long Beach on the Jet Cat Express, a passenger vessel owned and operated by Catalina. While aboard, Lopez soiled himself because the restroom's door was too narrow for his wheelchair to enter.

Catalina has not altered the restroom in the Jet Cat Express since it was built in 2001. According to Tony Ross, Catalina's Vice President of Vessel Engineering, no passenger—other than Lopez—has ever reported any difficulty accessing the restroom. Ross also testified that the sliding "pocket door" creates a 26-inch-wide entryway when fully opened and the door cannot be widened because its handle is placed three inches from the outer edge of the door.

According to Ross, there are two reasons why widening the restroom door is not readily achievable. First, "installing a different type of handle at the outer edge of the ‘pocket door’ ... may make it more likely that passengers’ hands would be injured in the doorway when closing the door, due to the constant movement of the vessel." Second, Catalina "cannot structurally alter the restroom without negatively impacting the stability of the vessel ... [which] is a threat to the safety of navigation." Specifically, Ross explained:

[M]odifications and alterations to a vessel can negatively impact the stability of the vessel in many ways. For example, here, in order to expand the doorway of the disabled-accessible restroom on the Jet Cat Express, the structure of the restroom itself would need to be expanded which, in turn, would impact the structure of the adjoining restroom. As walls shift, the vessel's overall weight changes. These changes may cause the overall center of gravity ("COG") of the vessel to move, and the freeboard to be reduced. These two factors affect the stability of a vessel.

... Simply put, as the COG moves and the amount of freeboard becomes lower, the vessel becomes more susceptible to unstable situations.

In other words, Ross declared that widening the vessel's restroom door is not readily achievable.

Lopez sued Catalina alleging violations of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 – 12213, and the Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51. The district court bifurcated Lopez's ADA claims from his state law claim, and after some discovery, granted summary judgment to Catalina on Lopez's ADA claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim. Lopez timely appealed.

II. Standard of Review

We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Tauscher v. Phx. Bd. of Realtors, Inc. , 931 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Furnace v. Sullivan , 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013) ). Summary judgment is appropriate only if, taking the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "An issue of material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party." Tauscher , 931 F.3d at 962 (quoting Thomas v. Ponder , 611 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) ).

"The interpretation of [the ADA] is a question of law subject to de novo review." Molski v. Foley Estates Vineyard & Winery, LLC , 531 F.3d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 2008) (alteration in original) (quoting Barden v. City of Sacramento , 292 F.3d 1073, 1075 (9th Cir. 2002) ). We also review the district court's allocation of the burden of proof de novo. Id. (citing Ferrari, Alvarez, Olsen & Ottoboni v. Home Ins. Co. , 940 F.2d 550, 555 (9th Cir. 1991) ).

III. Analysis

Congress enacted the ADA to address discrimination against individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101(b)(1)–(4). Title III, at issue in this case, provides that "[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation." Id. § 12182(a). In simpler terms, owners of "places of public accommodation"—which include a passenger vessel like the Jet Cat Express—have a duty to make sure that individuals with disabilities can fully enjoy the facilities.¹

To prevail on a Title III discrimination claim, Lopez must establish that: (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) Catalina is a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) Catalina discriminated against him by denying him public accommodations because of his disability. Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc. , 481 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182(a) – (b) ). Here, the first two elements of Lopez's discrimination claim are met because neither party disputes that Lopez is disabled, see 42 U.S.C. § 12102, or that the Jet Cat Express is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of the ADA, see id. § 12181(7); 28 C.F.R. § 36.104. Only the third element is at issue: whether the inaccessibility of the restroom on the Jet Cat Express constitutes discrimination under the ADA. See Strong v. Valdez Fine Foods , 724 F.3d 1042, 1044 (9th Cir. 2013) ("There is no dispute that [the plaintiff] is disabled, [or] that the restaurant is covered by the ADA .... The only question is whether any barriers interfered with [the plaintiff's] ability ‘to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations’ of the restaurant." (quoting Chapman v. Pier 1 Imps. (U.S.), Inc. ("Chapman I "), 631 F.3d 939, 945 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc))). Lopez alleges that Catalina's failure to widen the restroom door—an "architectural barrier" under the statute—prevented him from fully enjoying the facilities aboard the Jet Cat Express.²

A. Removal of Architectural Barriers Under the ADA

Discrimination under Title III of the ADA specifically includes "a failure to remove architectural barriers ... in existing facilities ... where such removal is readily achievable ." 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) (emphases added). In addition, even if "an entity can demonstrate that the removal of a barrier ... is not readily achievable," the entity is still liable under the ADA if it fails to "make [its] goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations available through alternative methods" so long as "such methods are readily achievable ." Id. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(v) (emphases added). The ADA defines the phrase "readily achievable" as "easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense." Id. § 12181(9).

Examples of architectural barriers that are subject to the ADA include slopes and cross-slopes in a parking lot that are too steep (more than two percent incline), Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond of Cal., LLC , 780 F.3d 1260, 1262 (9th Cir. 2015) ; aisles in a store that are not wide enough for wheelchairs, Chapman v. Pier 1 Imps. (U.S.), Inc. ("Chapman II "), 779 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir. 2015) ; seating in a restaurant that does not accommodate wheelchairs; Strong , 724 F.3d at 1044 ; soap dispensers and hand dryers that are mounted too high (more than forty inches from the floor), Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co. , 654 F.3d 903, 905 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011) ; and a bar that is too high to drink from, Jankey v. Poop Deck , 537 F.3d 1122, 1123 (9th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, to prevail on his discrimination claim, Lopez must establish either: (1) that Catalina failed to alter the restroom door when doing so was readily achievable; or (2) even if the alteration was not readily achievable, that Catalina could have made the restroom available to Lopez through alternative methods without much difficulty or expense. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv)–(v). We address each of these alleged bases of liability in turn.

B. Readily Achievable

The district court granted summary judgment to Catalina largely because it concluded that Lopez bore—and failed to carry—the burden of establishing that altering the Jet Cat Express's restroom door was "readily achievable." Our court has not decided which party bears the burden to establish that removal of an architectural barrier is or is not readily achievable. The district court recognized this was an...