Cluster 4783623

Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 26 974 F.3d 1030, 1038 (9th Cir. 2020) (“plaintiffs must plausibly show how the cost 27 1 circumstances”).

Chapter of the Univ. of Cal. 24 Hastings Coll. of the L. v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 , 675 (2010) (stipulations are judicial 25 admissions); Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030 , 1033 n. 1 (9th Cir. 26 2020) ("Catalina admitted in its answer that it was a place of public accommodation, and 27 this admission is binding.") (emphasis added); Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret.

See Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030 , 1038 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Title III of the ADA is silent as to who bears the burden of proving at summary judgment that removal of an architectural barrier is, or is not, readily achievable.”).

Notably “subsections 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) and (v)—which, read together, require the removal of an architectural barrier unless such removal is not readily achievable—place the ultimate burden on the defendant to prove the affirmative defense that removal of an architectural barrier is not readily achievable.” See Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted).

If the defendant fails to 21 plead an applicable affirmative defense, “the plaintiff is effectively entitled to judgment on the 22 pleadings as to that claim—assuming he pleads the preceding elements of a qualifying disability, 23 a covered public accommodation, and an architectural barrier encountered.” Id.; cf. Lopez v. 24 Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1038 (9th Cir. 2020). 25 Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “can easily remove the architectural bar…

To prevail on a Title III ADA claim, plaintiff “must 16 establish that: (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) [defendants] are a private 17 entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) [defendants] 18 discriminated against him by denying him public accommodations because of his disability.” 19 Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2020). 20 The ADA defines disability as “[a] physical or mental…

Thus, the Court need only examine whether these two claims are properly pleaded. 25 To properly plead his ADA claim, Raglin must allege that: “(1) he is disabled within the 26 meaning of the ADA; (2) [Defendants’ Business] is a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a 27 place of public accommodation; and (3) [Defendants’ Business] discriminated against him by 28 denying him public accommodations because of his disability.” See Lopez v. Catalina Channel 1 Express, Inc…

Nov. 26, 2018); Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2020); J.D. by Doherty v. Colonial Williamsburg Found., 925 F.3d 663, 669 (4th Cir. 2019).

If the defendant fails to 11 plead an applicable affirmative defense, “the plaintiff is effectively entitled to judgment on the 12 pleadings as to that claim—assuming he pleads the preceding elements of a qualifying disability, 13 a covered public accommodation, and an architectural barrier encountered.” Id.; cf. Lopez v. 14 Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1038 (9th Cir. 2020). 15 Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “can easily remove the architectural barr…

If the defendant fails to 28 plead an applicable affirmative defense, “the plaintiff is effectively entitled to judgment on the 1 pleadings as to that claim—assuming he pleads the preceding elements of a qualifying disability, 2 a covered public accommodation, and an architectural barrier encountered.” Id.; cf. Lopez v. 3 Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1038 (9th Cir. 2020). 4 Here, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants can easily remove the architectural barrier…

(Doc. 38-2.) 24 A. ADA Disability Claim 25 The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (a); Lopez 26 v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2020) (observing that the ADA 27 was enacted “to address discrimination against individuals with disabilities”).

Cal. 2014), abrogated on other grounds by 25 Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1038 (9th Cir. 2020). 26 Accordingly, this factor favors entry of default judgment. 27 28 1 6.

(See generally Doc. 26 at 8-18.) 24 A. Disability under the ADA 25 The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (a); Lopez v. 26 Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2020) (observing that the ADA was 27 enacted “to address discrimination against individuals with disabilities”).

If the defendant fails to 21 plead an applicable affirmative defense, “the plaintiff is effectively entitled to judgment on the 22 pleadings as to that claim—assuming he pleads the preceding elements of a qualifying disability, a 23 covered public accommodation, and an architectural barrier encountered.” Id.; cf. Lopez v. 24 Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1038 (9th Cir. 2020) (applying a burden-shifting 25 analysis when evaluating evidence at the summary judg…

Under the ADA, a “plaintiff must initially prove that . . . the requested modification was reasonable,” Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2020), which encompasses proving that the requested modification will not “impose[] undue financial and administrative burdens” on the 3 defendant.

To prevail on a Title III ADA claim, Plaintiff “must 9 establish that: (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) [Defendants] are a private 10 entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) [Defendants] 11 discriminated against him by denying him public accommodations because of his disability.” 12 Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2020). 13 The ADA defines disability as “[a] physical or mental …

To prevail on a Title III ADA claim, Plaintiff “must establish 19 that: (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) [Defendant] is a private entity that 20 owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) [Defendant] discriminated 21 against him by denying him public accommodations because of his disability.” Lopez v. Catalina 22 Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2020). 23 The ADA defines disability as “[a] physical or mental im…

To prevail on a Title III ADA claim, Plaintiff “must 9 establish that: (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) [Defendants] are a private 10 entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) [Defendants] 11 discriminated against him by denying him public accommodations because of his disability.” 12 Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2020). 13 The ADA defines disability as “[a] physical or mental …

Cal. 2011)). 27 “Accessibility requirements can differ depending on when the public accommodation was 1 were altered or constructed after 1993 must be ‘readily accessible to and usable by individuals 2 with disabilities,’ 42 U.S.C. § 12183 (a)(1), architectural barriers in then-existing facilities need 3 only be removed if doing so is ‘readily achievable,’ id. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).”3 Id.; Lopez v. 4 Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 2020) (“Discri…

Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, 974 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 2020).

The Ninth Circuit has also adopted the Second Circuit’s RODRÍGUEZ-BURGOS v. ARCOS Page 40 DORADOS, LLC, ET AL. framework since it understood that it was the “most sensible because otherwise we would be asking too much of plaintiffs, especially considering that defendants have more knowledge and information regarding their own facilities, which allows them to quickly and easily counter implausible barrier- removal proposals.” López v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d …

Should plaintiff opt to try again, a renewed motion should 19 also address in greater detail how plaintiff has met his burden to establish that the removal of the 20 alleged barriers here was “readily achievable” under 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (b)(2)(A)(iv), see Lopez v. 21 Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2020).

To prevail on a Title III ADA claim, Plaintiff “must 26 establish that: (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) [Defendants] are a private 27 entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) [Defendants] 28 discriminated against him by denying him public accommodations because of his disability.” 1 Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2020). 2 The ADA defines disability as “[a] physical or mental i…

Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1038 (9th Cir. 2020).

As the Ninth Circuit recognized: 17 [T]he ADA requires courts to consider four enumerated factors when determining 18 whether an action is readily achievable, including: 19 (A) the nature and cost of the action needed; 20 (B) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the action; the number of persons employed at such facility, the effect on expenses and resources, 21 or the impact otherwise of such action upon the operation of the facility; 22…

“Discrimination under Title III of the ADA specifically includes ‘a 20 failure to remove architectural barriers . . . in existing facilities . . . where such removal is readily 21 achievable.’” Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 2020) 22 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (b)(2)(A)(iv); emphasis in original).

“Discrimination under Title III of the ADA specifically includes ‘a 20 failure to remove architectural barriers . . . in existing facilities . . . where such removal is readily 21 achievable.’” Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 2020) 22 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (b)(2)(A)(iv); emphasis in original).

Doe v. CVS 15 Pharmacy, Inc., 982 F.3d 1204, 1212 (9th Cir. 2020); Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 16 974 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2020).

Lopez v. Catalina Channel 21 Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2020). 22 Unlawful discrimination under the ADA occurs when features of a public accommodation 23 deny equal access to disabled persons: 24 It shall be discriminatory to subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such 25 individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial of the opportunity of the indivi…

Notably, the four-factor test set 12 forth by the ADA inevitably is a question of fact which requires 13 a showing of evidence. 14 An ADA plaintiff bears the initial burden of “plausibly 15 showing how removal of an architectural barrier is readily 16 achievable under the circumstances.” Lopez v. Catalina Channel 17 Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2020).

This is for good reason: “Courts in this district and throughout the Ninth Circuit 17 recognize that the waiver argument is foreclosed by the burden-shifting standard adopted by 18 the Ninth Circuit in Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 19 2020).” Tram Chim’s, 2021 WL 6129054 , at *1.

Nevertheless, 25 even assuming the “readily achievable” defense applies, it does not preclude the relief Mr. Block 26 seeks. 27 In the Ninth Circuit, while an ADA defendant “bears the ultimate burden of persuasion that 1 how the cost of removing the architectural barrier at issue does not exceed the benefits under the 2 circumstances.” Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1038, 1040 (9th Cir. 3 2020).

Drawing all reasonable inferences in Onokohwomo’s favor, as we must at the summary judgment stage of review, Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2020), we conclude the record contains sufficient evidence for a jury to infer that Fern described the alleged theft to the Kevin Jewelers employee, and that the employee had sufficient extrinsic information about Onokohwomo to determine that the alleged thief and the person who had been seen twice…

Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 15 2020).

“To 25 prevail on a Title III discrimination claim, [the plaintiff] must establish that: (1) he is disabled 26 within the meaning of the ADA; (2) [the defendant] is a private entity that owns, leases, or 27 operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) [the defendant] discriminated against him by 28 denying him public accommodations because of his disability.” Lopez v. Catalina Channel 1 Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2020); see 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182 (a)-(b)).

The Ninth Circuit recently decided to adopt a burden-shifting framework to determine 1 Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1034-1039 (9th Cir. 2020).

The 20 elements to plead a Title III discrimination claim are: (1) the plaintiff is disabled within the 21 meaning of the ADA, (2) the defendant is a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a public 22 accommodation, and (3) the plaintiff was denied public accommodations because of his disability. 23 Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2020).

Courts in this district and throughout the Ninth 4 Circuit recognize that the waiver argument is foreclosed by the burden-shifting standard adopted 5 by the Ninth Circuit in Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 6 2020) and that even in a default context, a plaintiff still needs to meet his “initial burden of 7 plausibly showing that a proposal for removing a barrier is readily achievable.” See e.g., Johnson 8 v. Garlic Farm Truck Ctr.

Lopez v. Catalina Channel 11 Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2020). 12 Unlawful discrimination under the ADA occurs when features of a public accommodation 13 deny equal access to disabled persons: It shall be discriminatory to subject an individual or class of 14 individuals on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other 15 arrangements, to a denial of the opportunity of the indivi…

No. 202 at ¶ 102) (emphasis added): 19 Plaintiffs propose as a remedy that Lyft be required to meet wait 20 time benchmarks (benchmarks no longer than those set by the CPUC to qualify for exemption from payment into the Access Fund 21 . . .) that are well within Lyft’s capacity and are in line with what the CPUC has determined is feasible, and reliability standards [sic]. 22 If Lyft meets these standards, it will be exempt from paying into the Access Fund, leaving Lyft with …

First, they explain that though the Ninth Circuit has recognized the interpretation of 27 the ADA is a question of law, Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th 1 Cir. 2020), this Court earlier in this litigation concluded that a determination of whether Uber is 2 primarily a transportation entity is “a mixed question of law and fact.” They also note Joshi 3 intends to provide factual predicates for her conclusions; for example: Uber is a licensed fo…

First, they explain that though the Ninth Circuit has recognized the interpretation of 27 the ADA is a question of law, Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th 1 Cir. 2020), this Court earlier in this litigation concluded that a determination of whether Uber is 2 primarily a transportation entity is “a mixed question of law and fact.” They also note Joshi 3 intends to provide factual predicates for her conclusions; for example: Uber is a licensed fo…

On July 16, 2021, the Court denied the First Application for Default Judgment because Plaintiff failed to carry “its initial burden to ‘plausibly show how the cost of removing the architectural barrier at issue does not exceed the benefits under the circumstances.’” Order Denying First Application for Default J. 4, ECF No. 19 (quoting Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 2020)).

Lopez, 974 F.3d at 1034-39 (laying out the burden- 24 shifting framework applicable to the “readily achievable” standard).

To prevail on a Title III ADA claim, plaintiff “must establish 21 that: (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) [defendants] are a private entity that 22 owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) [defendants] discriminated 23 against him by denying him public accommodations because of his disability.” Lopez v. Catalina 24 Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2020). 25 The ADA defines disability as “[a] physical or mental…

Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 20 974 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Colo. Cross Disability Coal. v. Hermanson 21 Fam.

Our court 20 of appeals recently decided that, at summary judgment in ADA cases with a focus on 21 architectural barriers, the plaintiff has the initial burden of “plausibly showing that the cost of 22 removing an architectural barrier does not exceed the benefits under the particular 23 circumstances.” Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1040 (9th Cir. 24 2020).

Where removal is not readily achievable, the last element may be satisfied if the 2 defendant fails to make the public accommodation available “even though it 3 could have done so through alternative methods without much difficulty or 4 expense.” Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 974 F.3d 1030, 1039 (9th 5 Cir. 2020). 6 12.

Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 23 974 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182 (b)(2)(A)(iv)-(v)).

See id. at 1040 .