Lary Feezor v. Hanesbrands Direct

Ninth Circuit

Lary Feezor v. Hanesbrands Direct

596 F. App'x 558

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 5, 2015

Docket12-17392

StatusUnpublished

This text of 596 F. App'x 558 (Lary Feezor v. Hanesbrands Direct) 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

Lary Feezor v. Hanesbrands Direct, 596 F. App'x 558 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Lary Feezor appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment against him *559 as to his action brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and California state law. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case, we need not recount it here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Parker, 436 F.3d 1109, 1113 (9th Cir.2006).

Plaintiff alleges four ADA violations against Defendant Eddie Bauer and four ADA violations against Defendant Han-esBrands. Plaintiff has conceded that six of these alleged violations have been remedied, rendering these claims moot. See Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 905 (9th Cir.2011) (“Because a private plaintiff can sue only for injunctive relief (i.e., for removal of the barrier) under the ADA ... a defendant’s voluntary removal of alleged barriers prior to trial can have the effect of mooting a plaintiffs ADA claim.”).

As for the remaining two claims, Plaintiff alleges that the entrance doors at the Eddie Bauer and HanesBrands stores feature panel handles that are difficult to grasp. See 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. D at 4.13.9; 36 C.F.R. Pt. 1191, App. D at 309.4, 404.2.7. However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that these panel handles constitute an accessibility barrier that deprives him of “full and equal enjoyment” of a public accommodation in violation of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). In addition, Plaintiff did not show that the handles were not in compliance with the regulatory requirements.

An ADA plaintiff can establish standing “by demonstrating injury-in-fact coupled with an intent to return to a noncompliant facility.” Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 944 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate injury-in-fact and therefore lacks standing to pursue his claims.

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 *

Lary Feezor appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment against him *559 as to his action brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and California state law. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case, we need not recount it here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Parker, 436 F.3d 1109, 1113 (9th Cir.2006).

Plaintiff alleges four ADA violations against Defendant Eddie Bauer and four ADA violations against Defendant Han-esBrands. Plaintiff has conceded that six of these alleged violations have been remedied, rendering these claims moot. See Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 905 (9th Cir.2011) (“Because a private plaintiff can sue only for injunctive relief (i.e., for removal of the barrier) under the ADA ... a defendant’s voluntary removal of alleged barriers prior to trial can have the effect of mooting a plaintiffs ADA claim.”).

As for the remaining two claims, Plaintiff alleges that the entrance doors at the Eddie Bauer and HanesBrands stores feature panel handles that are difficult to grasp. See 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. D at 4.13.9; 36 C.F.R. Pt. 1191, App. D at 309.4, 404.2.7. However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that these panel handles constitute an accessibility barrier that deprives him of “full and equal enjoyment” of a public accommodation in violation of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). In addition, Plaintiff did not show that the handles were not in compliance with the regulatory requirements.

An ADA plaintiff can establish standing “by demonstrating injury-in-fact coupled with an intent to return to a noncompliant facility.” Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 944 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate injury-in-fact and therefore lacks standing to pursue his claims.

AFFIRMED.

*

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

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a New York Corporation v. Eileen M. Parker, AKA Eileen Marrero, Anita Pietrofitta Estate of Scott Parker, by and Through Its Personal Representative, and Zachary Dry, a Minor Child by and Through His Natural Mother and Guardian Lisa Dry, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a New York Corporation v. Eileen M. Parker, AKA Eileen Marrero, Anita Pietrofitta, and Zachary Dry, a Minor Child by and Through His Natural Mother and Guardian Lisa Dry Estate of Scott Parker, by and Through Its Personal Representative

436 F.3d 1109 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

596 F. App'x 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lary-feezor-v-hanesbrands-direct-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack