Bodley v. Plaza Management Corp.

Ninth Circuit

Bodley v. Plaza Management Corp.

331 F. App'x 547

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 26, 2009

DocketNo. 08-15697

StatusPublished

This text of 331 F. App'x 547 (Bodley v. Plaza Management Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bodley v. Plaza Management Corp., 331 F. App'x 547 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

*

David Bodley appeals the district court’s summary judgment in his action under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), alleging that he was denied full and equal enjoyment of the Scottsdale Plaza Resort (“Plaza”) as a result of architectural barriers. The district court concluded that Bodley lacked standing because he did not show he was likely to patronize the hotel in the future, thereby failing to establish the imminent injury required for injunctive relief. We affirm.

Though Bodley was able to demonstrate that he was actually injured because he “personally suffered discrimination as a result of the barriers in place” while patronizing Plaza, see Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir.2008), he did not “establish a ‘real and immediate threat of repeated injury,’ ” Fortyune v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075, 1081 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 496, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974)), because he did not demonstrate that he intended to return to patronize the Plaza. See D’Lil v. Best Western Encina Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031, 1037 (9th Cir.2008); Doran, 524 F.3d at 1041.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

*

David Bodley appeals the district court’s summary judgment in his action under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), alleging that he was denied full and equal enjoyment of the Scottsdale Plaza Resort (“Plaza”) as a result of architectural barriers. The district court concluded that Bodley lacked standing because he did not show he was likely to patronize the hotel in the future, thereby failing to establish the imminent injury required for injunctive relief. We affirm.

Though Bodley was able to demonstrate that he was actually injured because he “personally suffered discrimination as a result of the barriers in place” while patronizing Plaza, see Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir.2008), he did not “establish a ‘real and immediate threat of repeated injury,’ ” Fortyune v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075, 1081 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 496, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974)), because he did not demonstrate that he intended to return to patronize the Plaza. See D’Lil v. Best Western Encina Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031, 1037 (9th Cir.2008); Doran, 524 F.3d at 1041.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

331 F. App'x 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bodley-v-plaza-management-corp-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack