e right when they first told her she couldn't carry the dog and cart she said she would use or carrier but that was very first really she asked for them actually sure are you on a what she said was that she would try to use a carrier she's never used a carrier in the past she doesn't know whether or not a carrier will work that's what she felt she was forced to do because when code not allowed her to shop in unusual custom and the court even acknowledged the what the plaintiff wants in this case is to shop with her dog on a pillow the court said quote apparently plaintiff would prefer to shop with her dog on a pillow and quote it also said plaintiff argues the accommodation often vita fund is not one that is reasonable and quote the reason his brother wants to be face and pawing and scratching at her arms which is on a pillow coco can easily see ms butler and easily get to move butler to pa and scratch for the alert miss butler doesn't know whether or not coco will alert when it's in the carrier and the only way that she'll know that is if she tries it koko doesn't alert because it's too distracting or distressing for her mrs butler will will fall to the ground if she has a seizure because she won't have the alert and when co should not forced her to make that risk she made that effort that offer as a last ditch offer because she was not allowed to shop the way that she had for years the way that other other stores allowed her to shop and legally she's entitled to her choice of an accommodation if there are myriad ways to accommodate her she gets to choose the department of justice recently said in the a body of a statement of interest in interpreting its service animal regulations quote it is not for the school board to determine for the plaintiff the best or most reasonable approach the defendant cannot force a person with a disability accommodations they choose not to accept and their common sense reasons for that what happened give her all intents and purposes you know gotten what you wanted and want this case i mean based on the what the actions are of the defend you know then a pillow or a carrier and when clothes exception itself interest from a tory in this case what they're saying is she can use a carrier she's required to use a carrier and we're going to put a wanted poster up in the break room in order to don't know if you need to do that it looks like the the company here has made significant efforts and i'm just trying to figure out what a company what  position could do to make it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably expected to occur it sounds like you're saying that what they've done in terms of allowing the perform its function and that's the case here like i said ms butler has never tried to shop with a dog in a carrier and again if she did the curia would never be where she's shopping now where else can she shop in paris california well i hesitate to just say your honor because since the beginning of the year other stores have actually told her that they will allow her dog on the pillow carrier since this case has been filed in they are now adopting the same policy that w now she is limited to shopping at the ninety nine cent store because that's not a member of the california grocers association where does she get her groceries she used to shop it's they are brothers in a food bank and then bond when they had things on sale she lives on eight hundred dollars a month she's poor the reason she wanted to shop at winco is because when co as it does it says has the best prices around she could do a month's worth of shopping in two hours of time and live so when she made the offer of it was a desperate offer  could i let my dog be in the carrier just so she would be able to afford another groceries for the month she's never had to go to a food bank or she's a problem woman since winter wouldn't let her there with the dog in a pillow like they've shot she's had to go to a food but he said we're arguing because i feel like you're changing the argument a little bit here detector well because that's my understanding as well now you're saying well no we want that we don't we're not satisfied with just the carrier we want the pillow and then also i guess voluntary association she gets to choose the accommodation she was under the regulations she has followed it's reasonable as long as it's reasonable and when has not proven that there is any risk of harm from having a dog on a pillow in the car seat as a matter of fact as i said before in order for a carrier to work it would be have to it would have to be solo just that the same thing as a pillow and in that event the phantom spot of allergens would be the in direct contact with carriers pose minimal threat of harm to other customers if any they actually pose less threat of harm to other customers using the care using the carts and dogs and pets and seamy babies and raw food in cards they say that even that minuscule risk of harm could be alleviated by simply wiping down the cart so what ms butler wants is please let me shop the way i know my dog can walk penshoppe don't make me have to use a carrier because if the dog doesn't alert i'm going to suffer injury and again as i said before the district court acknowledged that that's what she wants the district court even said apparently she wants to stop with the pillow this is asking her to accept a carriers like this a person gets in a car accident and they have four thousand dollars worth of damage and the band they say person who hit me pay me four thousand dollars that money no i'm not going to pay you four thousand dollars ok what pay me three thousand dollars now i'm not going to pay you three thousand dollars so then the person father lost for their property damage enough accepting the policy the district court even ruled that store managers for when co have no authority to bind when calista any policy changes so there is nothing in this record that shows that the policy won't be revoked there's also no evidence that wilko even actually require employees to read the poster they are all that see been said was that the memo was quote posted in a visible location in the a for a break room so any newly cursor assistant managers will be aware of it and quote and went to itself doesn't even believe that's enough when butler injunction is not necessarily made overbroad by potential benefit or protection to persons other than prevailing parties in the lawsuit even if it's not a class action if such press is necessary to prevent the parties the least which they're entitled and here is in virtually any title three policy ca and forcing of an exception is unworkable and impractical basic what they're asking what they're saying is we're going to a policy that allows dogs in store well but i can exception to that they're not going to be allowed in grocery carts but they were going to make an exception for ms butler and so for anybody to know th blend in without fear of stigma attaching to their exercise of their rights being on a list as a rule breaker is stigmatizing and that's what this is if she's on a list where she's  saying she's on a list because she gets to be the one with the exception then so what's going to happen they're going to have other people that might sue that are going to go on the left and then employees going up or you know brutalist over bring all the want to posters over and say excuse me are you sarah adams o say one thirty eight i think the one idea it says service animal information when cove foods allows the use of service animals in our stores unless the animal is out of control and the animal's handler does not take effective action to control it or the animal is not housebroken due to sanitary concerns service animals are not authorized to ride in the cart right that the policy that we're fighting about it is one thirty eight i to have her dog in the cart so it could be close to her face and she asked that it be on a pillow so what is wrong with that well what she asked for was that the dog be allowed in the cart and actually what i'd like to start with your honor is some quotes on that very topic because i think the court has had this on the head in terms of what she requested and what she's been granted if you take a look at the opposition to our motion at b n or the are seventy and seventy one and seventy two you'll see a number of quotes from miss butler in opposition to our motion to dismiss and i think they're extremely important to what the score is grappling on to identify putting the dog in the carrier and then putting the carrier in the cart as a quote phil lucian to the issue that she's raise that line twelve at the are seventy two she goes on to say e r seventy three line ten that offering an accommodation that allowed her to put cocoa beans in a carrier and put the carrier in the car was quote always an option but that's really not the issue this that is not the issue the real issue is whether this case is moot or not moot right and it's serious i realize that to some people this might seem like a really trivial issue  and put it down in that manner i don't think it is i think it's important issue that that under our law that they have full and equal that individuals with disabilities have full and equal access to public accommodations and the question here is is has what you done really been enough to move this case because there's no injunction there's nothing that says you won't change the policy tomorrow you're up here  words and you know which form the accommodation takes and the real question is does this come in within the voluntary system to sation exception to moon is i have a real concern about that because you have your store manager at one store say i will make an exception for ms butler but that's not a real change in the policy and there's no injunction that will keep you from changing that policy tomorrow and what about anybody else who's in your similar situation ok let me answer your question a few different ways and i'd like to start by addressing the standard for this court's review and deciding whether or not there has the case h mooted and whether or not the issue is likely to recur and all of both sides agree that this court's review is for clear error the district court here and this is a question of law mootness is a question of law that's correct but on these factors and what we're really what the court has really raised is whether or not this conduct is reasonably likely to recur that's the exception under the voluntary secession doctrine which is an exception to  question of whether or not it's reasonably likely to recur is a question of fact the tran ok since the eleventh circuit held that the dissent in the sheely versus m r i case noted that that was an issue and the district court here focused on an abundance of details showing my client an equivocal commitment his acceptance even mind that this butler faces an extremely unique circumstance that she herself has said it's probably unique to and stringent especially for private parties i guess i and i just want to know why didn't you just grant her why grant her the exception why didn't she just change the policy as a whole with respect to this service animals the answer is one she is unique no other customers to my knowledge has ever and that this record of the disposed ever said i need to have my service animal in the cart seat in order to accommodate my disability she is unique and grocers and retailers are faced with an incredible difficulty under the a d a s because they can't interrogate someone who comes in and says i'd like to put my dog in the meets the the a b a itself talks about discrimination against the individual and i would say that if i could focus on how do we know that this new policy is entranced and permanent i think that's kind of the biggest challenge right you have and let me go through the list of things that the district court found to be persuasive on this the declarations of my clients describe dissemination of the exception from the corporate office the exception is permanent talking with my car carrier thinking why don't they do a consent decree why don't they just agree to an injunction and has a court sign off on it and then be done of you over with but instead you're here in the ninth circuit court of appeals telling us  you're the manager of your store and when store in paris has agreed to make a very particular lies exception well i think the company out to be held to this and be found by it and have it be permanent because i don't know where the absence of your manager goes away well the company is bound by it is prominent business butler what what mr butler is conflating and what is causing the court a lot of concern i think is the fact that maybe there's someone else out there like her who might be a good idea side else like they're out there but we're not even saying you have to great as to the whole world that jada agreed injunction to have the judge sign off on it your honor i don't think that's required risk i think it is required respectfully because you can hear individual action at one store by a manager who could lead to morrow is not enough to move this case and we respectfully whether you should be required to allow or to have the pillow i don't understand the difference between the pillow and the carrier frankly well i believe that the difference is simply one of health and safety for the remainder of the difference pillow jog and bounds in some manner that the concern with the pillow no i think a bed pillow or a dog pillow being placed in the car just is simply not a sanitary as a dog carrier system the laws very difficult for you in this in this area i know that normally in a lot of the cases that you spy all involve like a physical change to a structure you know for example the construction of wheelchair ramp but the last precursor specially for private companies i mean governments can show it in different ways but you have to show that it's permanent and entrenched and just not sure i think there are some concerns here on whether the the flyer in the breakroom is not well and i don't and won't let me adjust that because i don't think that i think that the fact that the exceptions mean granted from a corporate office the fact that it was explained in person to all the people who would ever be in a position to discuss this issue the fact that it is posted in the break room so that people will be aware of it that future incoming employees will be aware of it the fact that we've stated we have no intention of revoking this modification that we've granted to the butler the fact that the timing the district court found that we had a strong case on the merits we didn't have to grant this exception and the fact that there were novel expected to recur and everything that you're sane seems like it subject to personnel changes maybe perhaps in management i mean there's nothing out there from the company saying we're going to change the policy permanently well actually your honor i would direct your attention to the reed declaration which is at the are eighteen and that is fine the corporate office a letter to we the reason for that again is because eighty eight defendants are in a very difficult position there are you see in the amicus brief meaning there are a lot of people out there who take who just abuse the eighty eight and a lot of people who take  i do want to focus this very last point on the idea that an exception is not good enough it is a policy that is legal to not bring a dog or an animal into a place of business there is an exception for that for service animals service animals and i feel each there are exceptions to that the same thing is true for miss butler here and like you do you want to encourage my client and defendants like it title three cases before person can file a lawsuit they actually have to make a request for an accommodation before they file the lawsuit they have to show that the combination is based on a discriminatory policy seems like one of the outstanding issues here though is the use of the  pillow and i mean just follow up on that because i'm spending a lot of time on that but i want to make sure i understand it appears from the record you and your client did not restrict her request for relief to the use of pillows  in fact while responding to that in trying to tory's this but work knowledge that her request could be accommodated in different ways and it's on your one twenty seven she said i want to be able to place my service dog in a grocery cart seat with the blanket or pillow or other protection from the metal slot well i shop at the wynn co store in paris california it just seems that from this record that lau unheard allowing the the the animal dog to sit in a car seat carrier was an accommodation no was found acceptable by miss butler prior to and even during the lawsuit so that's why i was asking the question with respect to why does it need to be a pillow in a carrier the dog is confined the only way that the couple be allowed to see ms butler readily is that it has an old no i understand that but do you understand what the record shows that you're the purpose of that your work it was a pillow or a blanket or some other protection to protect the dog from the slats so that the dog wasn't laying just on metal slats but it was never and never wanted to have her dog in clo it may be it but if the dog's head is out the dogs are sitting up or standing milligan is going to go in the record shops at winco for two hours because you to she does her monthly shopping for two hours it's unreasonable it's inhumane to ask a dog to sit or stand for two hours is it's not fair and forcing her limiting her forcing her to lose a hearing have when she said a carrier would be fine no what she said was could i try to have well she tried that but she also said that  satisfied no one on another for our alternative to another time the pillow in the carrier has been what she'd been using and seemed to be satisfied with the whole time i respect the other in this case she has made clear that of all the options that might work and again a carrier might work of all the options that work she gets to choose and the one that she wants is a pillow because historically that works for her cocoa is on a kilo and albertsons and alert her to a carrier when there's a change in routine that could adversely impact the dog's ability to perform its function and i'd also like to say one last thing your honor this court has found that the title three cases a different in other sorts of illegal policy cases as this court for the a b a to yield its promise of equal august access for the disabled quote we must be particularly cautious regarding credibility determinations the rely on a plaintiff past disabilities act litigation and quote and this court should likewise rule that the court should not only be particularly cautious about they should outright discredit defendants who claim to repent only after they force a person to follow a lawsuit because before the lawsuit is filed that defendant already knows that a request for accommodation has been made they know what