Lemuel Bray v. Bank of America Mortgage

Ninth Circuit

Lemuel Bray v. Bank of America Mortgage

633 F. App'x 394

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 28, 2016

Docket13-55885

StatusUnpublished

This text of 633 F. App'x 394 (Lemuel Bray v. Bank of America Mortgage) 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

Lemuel Bray v. Bank of America Mortgage, 633 F. App'x 394 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Lemuel C. Bray appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his ac *395 tion alleging a violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) arising out of defendant’s denial of his online loan application. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), N. Cty. Cmty. Alliance, Inc. v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bray’s action because Bray failed to allege facts sufficient to- show any violation of Title III of the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a) (“No 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^]”); Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104, 1114-16 (9th Cir.2000) (under Title III of the ADA, there must be a connection to an actual physical place, and there is no discrimination where disabled individuals are given the same opportunity as everyone else); see also Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858 (9th Cir.2002) (damages are not recoverable under Title III).

Bray’s motions for remand and for a hearing, filed on September 11, 2013, are denied.

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 **

Lemuel C. Bray appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his ac *395 tion alleging a violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) arising out of defendant’s denial of his online loan application. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), N. Cty. Cmty. Alliance, Inc. v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bray’s action because Bray failed to allege facts sufficient to- show any violation of Title III of the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a) (“No 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^]”); Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104, 1114-16 (9th Cir.2000) (under Title III of the ADA, there must be a connection to an actual physical place, and there is no discrimination where disabled individuals are given the same opportunity as everyone else); see also Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858 (9th Cir.2002) (damages are not recoverable under Title III).

Bray’s motions for remand and for a hearing, filed on September 11, 2013, are denied.

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)

633 F. App'x 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lemuel-bray-v-bank-of-america-mortgage-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack