C. L. v. Del Amo Hospital, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 4, 2023
• Docket: 21-56195
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 4 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

C. L., an individual, No. 21-56195

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:18-cv-00475-DOC-DFM v.

DEL AMO HOSPITAL, INC., a California MEMORANDUM* corporation; DOES, 1-10, inclusive,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 17, 2023 Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

C.L. alleges that Del Amo Hospital violated the Americans with Disabilities

Act by barring her service dog, Aspen, from accompanying her during admissions

for inpatient psychiatric treatment. After our remand in 2021, the district court

entered judgment in favor of Del Amo, concluding that the hospital had established

the affirmative defense that Aspen’s presence would fundamentally alter its

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. program. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii). C.L. appealed. Because the district

court’s judgment was based on evidence that related to a specialized treatment

program that Del Amo no longer offered, we vacate the judgment and remand for

further development of the factual record.

1. After we remanded this case to the district court, Del Amo informed the

court that it no longer offered the specialized National Treatment Center (“NTC”)

program. Neither party argued that this development mooted the case. The district

court, however, had an independent duty to determine whether it could still grant

effective relief in light of the program’s termination. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a

Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 95 (1998); In re Martinez, 721 F.2d 262, 264 (9th Cir.

1983).

A claim becomes moot if it no longer presents a live controversy. See Flint

v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 823 (9th Cir. 2007). Events during litigation can moot

a claim if it is “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not

reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t

Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000). A case is moot only if it would be

impossible for a court to grant any effective relief to the prevailing party. Bayer v.

Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc., 861 F.3d 853, 862 (9th Cir. 2017).

C.L. seeks an injunction requiring Del Amo to allow Aspen to accompany

her during inpatient admissions. We remand this case to the district court to

2 determine whether any effective relief remains available given that Del Amo no

longer offers the NTC program. The district court should make findings of fact

and conclusions of law on the issue of mootness. We express no views on this

issue.

2. In the event the court determines that this case is not moot, further

proceedings are warranted. The district court’s decision was based on stale record

evidence specific to the NTC program. If a district court’s factual findings are

insufficient, “there should be a remand for further proceedings to permit the trial

court to make the missing findings.” Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 291

(1982). Because C.L. seeks prospective relief, the district court must determine

whether the hospital has established that Aspen’s presence would fundamentally

alter the essential nature of the programs that it currently administers. See PGA

Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 663, 682-87 (2001). The dearth of information

in the record about Del Amo’s current inpatient program and policies precludes

appellate review of the merits of C.L.’s claim. We therefore vacate the district

court’s judgment and remand for further findings of fact and conclusions of law as

appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a).

VACATED and REMANDED.