Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02230/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02230-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

HOLLYNN D’LIL,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIVERBOAT DELTA KING, INC.; 

CITY OF SACRAMENTO; OLD 

SACRAMENTO BUSINESS 

ASSOCIATION, INC.,; and DOES 

1 through 50, Inclusive,

Defendants.

CIV. NO. 2:11-2230 WBS AC

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, 

ALTERNATIVELY, FOR A STAY

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Hollynn D’Lil, a paraplegic, brought this 

action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 

12101 et seq. (“ADA”) and analogous state laws against defendants 

Riverboat Delta King, Inc. (“Delta King”) and the City of 

Sacramento arising out of the physical obstacles she allegedly 

encountered while visiting the Delta King. Delta King now moves 

for summary adjudication regarding certain alleged barriers 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 or, alternatively, 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 1 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

for a stay. 

I. Factual & Procedural History

The Delta King was a five-story vessel built over 

eighty-five years ago in the late 1920s. It carried passenger 

traffic between Sacramento and San Francisco until 1940. After 

some wartime service with the federal government, it had become a 

derelict vessel by the 1960s. By the 1980s, it was submerged 

near Rio Vista to the middle of the third deck. In 1984, the 

Coyne family purchased the vessel and brought it to Sacramento 

for restoration. 

From 1984 to 1989, the Coyne family rehabilitated the 

Delta King, converting it from a passenger vessel to a hotel with 

a restaurant, theatre, bar and grill, and banquet facilities. 

During the rehabilitation, the Delta King maintained many of its 

original characteristics, such as slanted floors and narrow door 

widths. It is now berthed at 1000 Front Street in Old Sacramento 

and, while it still floats, it is no longer a sea-worthy vessel. 

Since its original rehabilitation, patrons are able to 

board the Delta King through one of two gangways. The Elevator

Gangway leads to the second deck and incorporates a floating 

barge with an elevator and stairs and has two configurations 

depending on the water level of the Sacramento River. The Aft 

Gangway is less than twenty-five feet from the Elevator Gangway 

and leads directly to the third deck of the Delta King. Within 

the Delta King, an elevator provides access to the first three 

decks, but there is not an adequate means for disabled patrons to 

access the fourth and fifth decks. 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 2 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

The Delta Bar and Grill is on the fourth deck of the 

Delta King. Although disabled patrons are unable to access the 

fourth deck, the Delta King provides a cocktail seating area at 

the base of the main staircase on the third deck where patrons 

can order any drinks or food offered at the Delta Bar and Grill.

When the Delta Bar and Grill features live music about two to 

three times per week, disabled patrons are able to hear the 

music from the third deck. The Delta Bar and Grill also has a 

TV for patrons to view, but there is not a TV available in the 

seating area on the third deck. 

In her Complaint, plaintiff alleges claims under (1) 

the public services provisions of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, 

against the city; (2) section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973 against the city, 29 U.S.C. § 794; (3) the public 

accommodations provisions of the ADA against Delta King and the 

city, 42 U.S.C. § 12182; (4) California Health and Safety Code 

section 19955 against Delta King and the city; (5) California 

Government Code section 4456 against the city; (6) the California 

Disabled Persons Act (“CDPA”) against Delta King and the city, 

Cal. Civ. Code § 54 et seq.; (7) the Unruh Civil Rights Act

against Delta King and the city, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq.; (8) 

California Government Code section 11135 against the city; (9) 

California Government Code section 12948 against Delta King and 

the city; and (10) state law negligence against Delta King and 

the city.

Plaintiff’s Complaint details thirty-five pages of 

barriers on the Delta King that allegedly violate the ADA and 

analogous state disability laws. (See Compl. Ex. 1.) Delta 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 3 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

King’s motion for summary judgment is limited to the following 

alleged barriers: 1) the slope of the gangways;

1 2) vertical 

access to the fourth and fifth decks; 3) leveling of cambered 

decks; 4) removal of raised thresholds; and 5) configuration of 

the doors.2

 

1 Although plaintiff’s Complaint and opposition to Delta 

King’s motion for summary judgment appear to be limited to the 

slope of the Aft Gangway, Delta King indicated at oral argument 

that its motion for summary judgment addresses the slope of the 

Elevator and Aft Gangways. 

2 In what appears to be petty bickering between the 

parties, Delta King contends that the court should disregard 

plaintiff’s opposition and supporting filings as untimely, (Delta 

King’s Reply at 16:2-18:12 (Docket No. 80); Docket No. 80-2); 

plaintiff objects to new arguments in Delta King’s reply brief,

(Docket No. 81); plaintiff requests relief from potential default 

based on any untimely filings, (Docket No. 84); and Delta King 

objects to plaintiff’s sur-reply, (Docket No. 86). Suffice to 

say that each party has had the opportunity to be fully heard and 

the court will focus on the substance of the motion for summary 

judgment. The court will also decline plaintiff’s vague 

invitation to “consider exercising discretion to cross-grant 

summary judgment where appropriate.” (Pl.’s Opp’n at 1:6-7

(Docket No. 74).) 

Along a similar vein, Delta King filed sixty-one 

formulaic and conclusory objections to the statements in 

plaintiff’s declarations. (Docket No. 80-2.) In the thirteen 

pages of objections, Delta King simply cuts and pastes various 

objections without a single attempt to offer any helpful 

analysis. As the court has repeatedly explained, “Objections to 

evidence on the ground that the evidence is irrelevant, 

speculative, argumentative, vague and ambiguous, or constitutes 

an improper legal conclusion are all duplicative of the summary 

judgment standard itself.” Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. All 

Prof’l Realty, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 1198, 1215 (E.D. Cal. 2012) 

(citing Burch v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 

1110, 1119–20 (E. D. Cal. 2006)). “Similarly, statements based 

on speculation, improper legal conclusions, personal knowledge, 

or argumentative statements are not facts and can only be 

considered as arguments, not as facts, on a motion for summary 

judgment.” Id. Assuming Delta King actually intended that the 

court give serious consideration to any of its rote objections 

and to the extent that the court relies on any of the 

declarations, the court overrules Delta King’s objections. 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 4 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

II. Discussion

Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that 

there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the 

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 56(a). A material fact is one that could affect the outcome 

of the suit, and a genuine issue is one that could permit a 

reasonable jury to enter a verdict in the non-moving party’s 

favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 

(1986). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial 

burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material 

fact and can satisfy this burden by presenting evidence that 

negates an essential element of the non-moving party’s case. 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). 

Alternatively, the moving party can demonstrate that the nonmoving party cannot produce evidence to support an essential 

element upon which it will bear the burden of proof at trial. 

Id.

Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the 

burden shifts to the non-moving party to “designate ‘specific 

facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 

324 (quoting then-Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). To carry this burden, 

the non-moving party must “do more than simply show that there is 

some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita 

Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). 

“The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence . . . will be 

insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could 

reasonably find for the [non-moving party].” Anderson, 477 U.S. 

at 252.

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 5 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

In deciding a summary judgment motion, the court must 

view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving 

party and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor. Id. at 

255. “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, 

and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury 

functions, not those of a judge . . . ruling on a motion for 

summary judgment . . . .” Id.

A. Relevant Statutes

1. The ADA

The ADA prohibits discrimination against any individual 

on the basis of disability in a place of public accommodation. 42 

U.S.C. § 12182(a). “The statute provides a ‘comprehensive,’ 

‘broad mandate’ to eliminate discrimination against disabled 

persons, addressing both ‘outright intentional exclusion’ as well 

as the ‘failure to make modifications to existing facilities and 

practices.’” Fortyune v. City of Lomita, --- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 

4377467, at *2 (9th Cir. Sept. 5, 2014). “The concept of 

‘discrimination’ under the ADA does not extend only to obviously 

exclusionary conduct--such as a sign stating that persons with 

disabilities are unwelcome or an obstacle course leading to a 

store’s entrance.” Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 

F.3d 939, 945 (9th Cir. 2001). “Rather, the ADA proscribes more

subtle forms of discrimination--such as difficult-to-navigate 

restrooms and hard-to-open doors--that interfere with disabled 

individuals’ ‘full and equal enjoyment’ of places of public 

accommodation.” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a)). “[A]

private plaintiff can sue only for injunctive relief (i.e., for 

removal of the barrier) under the ADA.” Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 6 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

Co., 654 F.3d 903, 905 (9th Cir. 2011). 

The ADA specifically prohibits any person who owns, 

leases, or operates a place of public accommodation from 

“fail[ing] to remove architectural barriers” in existing 

facilities “where such removal is readily achievable.” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). For newly constructed facilities or for 

“alterations” made to existing facilities, the ADA requires that 

the facilities be “readily accessible to and usable by 

individuals with disabilities.” Id. § 12183(a)(1)-(2). 

“Congress directed the Department of Justice . . . to 

issue regulations that provide substantive standards applicable 

to facilities covered under Title III.” Or. Paralyzed Veterans 

of Am. v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., 339 F.3d 1126, 1129 (9th Cir.

2003). “The[] standards lay out the technical structural 

requirements of places of public accommodation and are applicable 

‘during the design, construction, and alteration of such 

buildings and facilities . . . under the [ADA].” Fortyune v. Am.

Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075, 1080–81 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(quoting 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. A) (alterations in original). 

The Department of Justice first adopted the 1991 ADA Standards 

for Accessible Design, which are commonly referred to as the 

“ADAAG,” and subsequently revised those standards in 1994. See

28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, app. A. In 2010, the Department of Justice 

adopted the 2010 Design Standards for Accessible Design (“2010 

Design Standards”). The ADAAG was in effect for new construction 

and alterations until March 14, 2012, and the 2010 Design 

Standards became effective for new construction and alterations 

on or after March 15, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 7 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

2. California Health & Safety Code Section 19955

Section 19955 of the California Health and Safety Code 

requires that all public accommodations adhere to the provisions 

of sections 4450 through 4461 of the California Government Code. 

Cal. Health & Safety Code § 19955(a). Section 4450 authorizes 

the State Architect to develop and submit building standards to 

ensure that all buildings and facilities are “accessible to and 

usable by persons with disabilities.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 4450. 

Although a plaintiff can obtain injunctive relief to remedy a 

violation of section 19955, see Cal. Civ. Code § 55, the statute 

“does not authorize an action for damages.” Botosan v. Fitzhugh, 

13 F. Supp. 2d 1047, 1052 (S.D. Cal. 1998) (citing Donald v. Cafe 

Royale, Inc., 218 Cal. App. 3d 168, 183 (1st Dist. 1990)). 

3. Unruh Civil Rights Act

The Unruh Act provides, in relevant part, that every 

person is “entitled to the full and equal accommodations, 

advantages, privileges, or services in all business 

establishments of every kind whatsoever” notwithstanding his or 

her disability. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b). “Whoever denies, aids 

or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction 

contrary to Section 51” is liable under UCRA for damages and 

attorney’s fees. Id. § 52. Any violation of the ADA is also a 

violation of the Unruh Act. Id. § 51(f).

In order to recover under the Unruh Act for a violation 

of the ADA, a plaintiff need not show that he suffered 

intentional discrimination. Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 46 Cal. 

4th 661, 665 (2009). However, “[t]o the extent [p]laintiff seeks 

to make an Unruh Act claim separate from an ADA claim, she must 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 8 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

allege intentional discrimination.” Wilkins-Jones v. County of 

Alameda, 859 F. Supp. 2d 1039, 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citations 

omitted); Munson, 46 Cal. 4th at 668 (“[A] plaintiff seeking to 

establish a case under the Unruh Act must plead and prove 

intentional discrimination . . . .” (citations and internal 

quotation marks omitted)). 

4. California Disabled Persons Act

The CDPA provides that “individuals with disabilities 

shall be entitled to full and equal access . . . to . . . places 

of public accommodation.” Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1. The CDPA also 

provides a private right of action whereby individuals who are 

denied admission to or enjoyment of public facilities can recover 

damages and attorney’s fees. Id. § 54.3. 

However, “a structural impediment does not violate the 

[CDPA] unless the impediment also violates a structural access 

standard.” Hankins v. El Torito Rests., 63 Cal. App. 4th 510, 

522 (1st Dist. 1998). The CDPA “does not impose an affirmative 

duty to eliminate access barriers except as required by specific 

building standards.” Californians for Disability Rights v. 

Mervyn’s LLC, 165 Cal. App. 4th 571, 587 (1st Dist. 2008) (citing 

Marsh v. Edwards Theatres Circuit, Inc., 64 Cal. App. 3d 881 (2d 

Dist. 1976)). Those standards, not “the [C]DPA’s general 

guarantee of full and equal access,” determine a defendant’s 

liability under the CPDA. Id.

B. Access Infrastructure Under the ADA and California Law

1. Ramps vs. Gangways

At the time the Delta King was restored in 1984, the 

California Building Code (“CBC”) required that ramps providing 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 9 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

access to buildings or structures could not exceed a slope of 1 

foot rise in 12 feet (“12:1”), or a grade of 8.33%. (Post Decl. 

Ex. 29 at 94.) Since enactment of the ADA in 1990, the parties 

agree that all relevant standards have similarly required a 12:1 

slope ratio for ramps. For example, section 405.2 of the 2010 

Design Standards provides that “[r]amp runs shall have a running 

slope not steeper than 1:12.” 

Delta King first contends that it was not required to 

comply with the 12:1 slope requirement for ramps in the 1984 CBC

because the sloped access walkways to the Delta King are 

gangways, not ramps, and the CBC did not regulate gangways in 

1984. Common sense dictates, however, that a gangway is simply a 

type of ramp. In fact, Delta King’s copy of the Manuscript Plan 

Set repeatedly labels its pedestrian walkways providing access as 

“ramps.” (See M. Coyne Decl. Ex. 7 at A-2 (Docket No. 59).) 

Delta King’s citation to the Wikipedia National Dictionary’s 

definition of a “gangway” as “an articulating bridge or ramp, 

such as from land to a dock or a ship” underscores that a gangway 

is simply a subspecies of a ramp. (Delta King’s Mem. at 29:17-18 

(Docket No. 54-1) (emphasis added)); see also 2010 Design 

Standards § 106.5 (defining “ramp” as “[a] walking surface that 

has a running slope steeper than 1:20” and “gangway” as “[a] 

variable-sloped pedestrian walkway that links a fixed structure 

or land with a floating structure”) (emphasis added).

Therefore, although the sloped pedestrian walkways 

providing access to the Delta King are gangways, they also come 

under the broader description of a ramp. The fact that the 

various ADA and California regulations subsequently determined 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 10 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

that the unique characteristics of some gangways justified 

exemptions from the 12:1 slope ratio for ramps does not mean that 

gangways were not regulated as ramps prior to the exceptions. 

The very creation of the exceptions confirms that the standard 

12:1 ratio applied. Accordingly, the 12:1 slope in the CBC 

applied to Delta King’s gangways when it was restored in 1984. 

To the extent Delta King argues that its gangways do not pose 

barriers under the ADA because they comply with the ADAAG or 2010 

Design Standards, the 12:1 slope similarly controls. 

2. Compliance with the 12:1 Slope 

To establish that the Elevator and Aft Gangways comply 

with the 12:1 slope requirement, Delta King relies on the 

declaration of Charles Coyne, who owns twenty percent of the 

shares of the Delta King and served as the General Manager from 

1991 to 2005 and 2007 to 2013. (C. Coyne Decl. ¶ 2 (Docket No. 

60).) Utilizing water levels recorded by the California 

Department of Water Resources (“DWR”), Charles used “simple

geometry” to calculate the slope of the Delta King’s two

gangways. (Id. ¶ 12.) Specifically, the DWR recorded water 

levels for the Sacramento River at the I Street Bridge, which is 

about 400 yards north of the Delta King. (Id. ¶ 11.) Since 

approximately January 1, 2001, the DWR has measured and recorded 

the water levels of the Sacramento River at the I Street Bridge 

each day and posted them on its website. (Id.) From 1998 to 

January 1, 2001, only incomplete recorded measurements are 

available. (Id.) 

On June 14, 2014, Charles measured the vertical 

distance from the water level to the boardwalk, Elevator Gangway 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 11 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

connection point, the direct barge connection point, and the Aft 

Gangway connection point. (Id.) Taking those measurements, 

along with the water height at the I Street Bridge on June 14, 

2014 and the length and width of each gangway, Charles represents 

that he was able to calculate the slope of each gangway on June 

14, 2014. (Id.) He indicates that he was then able to utilize 

“simple geometry[] to determine the slop of the gangways at any 

river height.” (Id.) According to Charles’s calculations, there

was only one day from January 1, 2001 to June 14, 2014 when

neither the Elevator Gangway nor the Aft Gangway had at least a 

12:1 slope. (Id.)

This evidence is insufficient to withstand summary 

judgment for two reasons. First, assuming their accuracy, 

Charles’s calculations do not establish that the Elevator and Aft

Gangways are compliant. He indicates only that on every day

except one since January 2, 2001, at least one of the two 

gangways was compliant. Delta King does not argue, however, that 

one gangway could exceed the 12:1 slope so long as the other 

gangway offered plaintiff access with a 12:1 slope. Plaintiff’s 

expert, Zachery Reynolds, states that the slope of the Aft 

Gangway “taken during normal inspection at random periods all 

indicated a slope greater than a 1:12 ratio,” and “for all but 

the smallest percent of time, the aft access slope to the Hotel 

is on a 10% (1:10) to 16% (1:6) grade.” (Reynolds Decl. ¶ 12, 

Exs. 202, 203 (Docket No. 69).) 

Second, Reynolds also disputes the accuracy of 

Charles’s calculations. Reynolds is a naval architect with 

forty-five years of experience and has reached the “provisional 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 12 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

opinion that [Charles] has used non-reliable and inaccurate 

data.” (Id. ¶ 3.) Reynolds explains that the DWR’s water level 

readings from the I Street Bridge are “calibrated and calculated 

from a gage reading where the datum is 0.0 (zero)” and that such 

measurements do not accurately reflect the water level at the 

Delta King. (Id. ¶¶ 4-12.) At summary judgment, the court 

cannot weigh the reliability of Charles’s method of calculating 

the slopes of the gangways against Reynolds’s opinion that the 

calculations are inaccurate. See Scharf v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 597 

F.2d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir. 1979) (holding that resolution of 

issues of fact based on conflicting expert testimony is “not the 

court’s function on summary judgment”).

3

Accordingly, Delta King is not entitled to summary 

adjudication on the ground that the slopes of the Elevator and 

Aft gangways comply with the 12:1 slope requirement. 

3. “Recreational Boating Facilities” Exceptions

Next, Delta King contends that the Elevator and Aft 

Gangways do not constitute barriers under the ADA because they 

come within the slope exception in section 1003.1 of the 2010

Design Standards. Section 1003 governs “recreational boating 

facilities” and specifically covers the slope and other 

requirements of “gangways.”4 The exceptions provided for 

 

3 Because the court does not rely on Charles’s 

declaration to grant Delta King’s motion for summary judgment, it 

need not resolve plaintiff’s objection to his declaration on the 

ground that he was not disclosed as an expert witness or 

qualified as an expert.

4 Delta King also relies on section 15 of the United 

States Access Board’s version of ADAAG, which addresses 

exceptions applicable to “recreational facilities,” including 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 13 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

“gangways” in the 2010 Design Standards are limited to 

“[a]ccessible routes serving recreational boating facilities.” 

2010 Design Standards, § 1003.2. The issue is thus whether Delta 

King can rely on the “recreational boating facilities” exceptions 

for gangways to exempt the Elevator and Aft Gangways from 

compliance with the 12:1 slope.5 

The challenges the Delta King faces in providing 

accessible gangways are precisely the type of challenges the 

Department of Justice contemplated when it enacted the 2010 

Design Standards. In the commentary discussing the exception for 

recreational boating facilities, the Department of Justice 

explained, 

Section 1003.2.1 provides a list of exceptions 

applicable to structures such as gangways, transition 

plates, floating piers, and structures containing 

combinations of these elements that are affected by 

 

“boating facilities.” See United States Access Board ADA 

Accessibility Guidelines § 15 (Sept. 2002), http://www.accessboard.gov/guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-theada-standards/background/adaag (last visited Sept. 24, 2014). 

Although the United States Access Board published the ADAAG in 

1991, it did not publish Section 15 until 2002. More 

importantly, the Department of Justice has not adopted section 15 

and the Access Board indicates that “Section 15 has not been 

incorporated in the Department of Justice accessibility standards 

and therefore is not enforceable.” Id. The court will therefore 

not rely on the exceptions in section 15 of the Access Board’s 

version of ADAAG.

5 Plaintiff repeatedly argues that Delta King is no 

longer a “boat.” Although Delta King points out how it is 

similar to a boat in many respects, it does not argue that it is 

a “boat” or is exempt from the ADA as a “boat.” If Delta King 

were a boat, the 2010 Design Standards would not govern its 

gangways. See 2010 Design Standards, § 106.5 (stating, in the 

definition of “gangway,” that “[g]angways that connect to vessels 

are not addressed by this document”). 

 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 14 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

water level changes. The list of exceptions specifies 

alternate design requirements applicable to these 

structures which, because of water level variables, 

cannot comply with the slope, cross slope, and 

handrail requirements for fixed ramps contained in 

sections 403.3, 405.2, 405.3, 405.6, and 405.7 of the 

2010 Standards.

28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. B (emphasis added). 

Nonetheless, while the varying levels of water on the 

Sacramento River cause the same challenges for the Delta King’s 

gangways as the challenges the Department of Justice contemplated 

in enacting the exceptions for “recreational boating facilities,” 

it cannot persuasively be argued that the Delta King is a 

“recreational boating facility.” In its analysis of the 

commentary received prior to adopting the exceptions for 

recreational boating facilities, the Department of Justice 

focused on facilities providing access to boats. See 28 C.F.R. 

pt. 26, app. B (“[T]he 2010 Standards require an accessible route 

to all accessible boating facilities, including boat slips and 

boarding piers at boat launch ramps.”) (emphasis added); see also

67 Fed. Reg. 56352-01, 56357 (Sept. 3, 2002) (“The Board is 

concerned that those involved in the design and construction of 

boat and ferry docks may not have been fully aware of the 

proposed rule and therefore may not have evaluated its impact on 

such facilities. In addition, through the proposed rule, the 

Board sought information to establish access provisions for 

gangways based on the size of vessels using floating piers.”) 

(emphasis added).6

 

6 The only federal definition for “recreational boating 

facilities” appears in Coast Guard regulations addressing the 

transport of oil and other substances. This definition would 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 15 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16

The Department of Justice could have simply applied the 

exceptions to “gangways.” It did not. After broadly defining 

the term “gangway,” it unequivocally limited the slope exceptions

to gangways accessing recreational boating facilities. The Ninth 

Circuit has repeatedly instructed courts to “‘construe the 

language of the ADA broadly to advance its remedial purpose.’” 

Fortyune v. City of Lomita, 2014 WL 4377467, at *1 (quoting Cohen 

v. City of Culver City, 754 F.3d 690, 694 (9th Cir. 2014)); see 

also Guerrero v. Santo Thomas, No. CVA09-027, 2010 WL 3526453, at 

*5 (Guam Terr. Sept. 8, 2010) (“[W]hen construing remedial 

legislation, we narrowly construe exceptions and apply them only 

to situations which are plainly and unmistakably consistent with 

the terms and spirit of the legislation.”). As the Ninth Circuit 

has explained, 

Our concern for the protective purposes of remedial 

legislation . . . does not vest this court with a 

license to rewrite the statute . . . . It is for us to 

ascertain--neither to add nor to subtract, neither to 

delete nor distort. Our compass is not to read a 

statute to reach what we perceive--or even what we 

think a reasonable person should perceive--is a 

sensible result. 

S.E.C. v. Gemstar-TV Guide Intern., Inc., 401 F.3d 1031, 1053 

(9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) 

(first omission in original). Accordingly, Delta King cannot 

rely on the slope exceptions for recreational boating facilities 

to establish that the Elevator and Aft Gangways comply with the 

 

exclude the Delta King. See 33 C.F.R. § 158.120 (“‘Recreational 

boating facility’ means a facility that is capable of providing 

wharfage or other services for 10 or more recreational vessels.

It includes, but is not limited to, marinas, boatyards, and yacht 

clubs, but does not include a place or facility containing only 

an unattended launching ramp.”) (emphasis added). 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 16 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17

2010 Design Standards. 

The same analysis excludes application of the 

exceptions for particular gangways in the California Department 

of Boating and Waterways’ 2005 Layout and Design Guidelines for 

Marina Berthing Facilities (“CDBW Guidelines”). The CDBW 

Guidelines “provide technical assistance and direction in the 

planning, design and construction of marina berthing facilities” 

and define “marina” as “a recreational boating facility on a 

coastal or inland waterfront that provides facilities and 

services for the wet and/or dry storage of boats, as well as 

embarking and disembarking of boat operators and passengers.” 

(Pl.’s Req. for Judicial Notice Ex. 219 (CDBW Guidelines) at 

iii); see also Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 6565.2 (defining 

“[r]ecreational boat” as “any vessel manufactured or used 

primarily for noncommercial use; or leased, rented, or chartered 

to another for the latter’s noncommercial use,” but not “a vessel 

engaged in the carrying of six or fewer passengers”).

Accordingly, because the gangways leading to the Delta King are 

subject to the 12:1 slope ratio and the Delta King has not 

established as a matter of law that the Elevator and Aft 

Gangways comply with that slope, the court will deny Delta 

King’s motion for summary adjudication with respect to its 

access infrastructure.

7

 

7 Delta King has not moved for summary judgment on the 

ground that the Elevator and Aft Gangways comply with the ADA 

because any modifications to remedy their slopes are not readily 

achievable.

In her opposition, plaintiff argues that adding the 

required handrails and extensions to the Aft Gangway are readily 

achievable. (Pl.’s Opp’n at 27.) The court will not address 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 17 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18

C. Alterations Under the ADA

Subsection 12183(a)(2) of the ADA provides that if a 

facility is “altered . . . in a manner that affects or could 

affect the usability of the facility,” the alterations must be 

made “in such a manner that, to the maximum extent feasible, the 

altered portions of the facility are readily accessible to and 

usable by individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 

12183(a)(2). In the absence of a definition of “altered” or 

“alterations” in the ADA, courts have looked to the definition 

provided in the the Department of Justice’s implementing 

regulations. Roberts v. Royal Atl. Corp., 542 F.3d 363, 369 (2d 

Cir. 2008). The regulations define alteration as “a change to a 

place of public accommodation or commercial facility that affects 

or could affect the usability of the building or facility or any 

part thereof.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.402(b). Although neither the ADA 

nor the implementing regulations define “usability,” the 

regulations provide the following illustrations as to what may or 

may not amount to an alteration: 

Alterations include, but are not limited to, 

remodeling, renovation, rehabilitation, 

reconstruction, historic restoration, changes or 

rearrangement in structural parts or elements, and 

changes or rearrangement in the plan configuration of 

walls and full-height partitions. Normal maintenance, 

reroofing, painting or wallpapering, asbestos removal, 

or changes to mechanical and electrical systems are 

not alterations unless they affect the usability of 

the building or facility.

Id. § 36.402(b)(1). The Department of Justice has commented that 

it “remains convinced that the [ADA] requires the concept of 

 

this proposed modification because Delta King did not seek 

summary adjudication on that issue.

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 18 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19

‘usability’ to be read broadly to include any change that affects 

the usability of the facility, not simply changes that relate 

directly to access by individuals with disabilities.” 56 Fed. 

Reg. 35544, 35581 (July 26, 1991); accord H.R. Rep. No. 101-

485(III) (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 445, 487 

(“Usability should be broadly defined to include renovations 

which affect the use of facility, and not simply changes which 

relate directly to access.”).

While “few courts in the Ninth Circuit have interpreted 

‘usability’ when assessing if an alteration has occurred,” courts 

outside this circuit “have tended to take an expansive view of 

alterations that affect usability.” Rodriguez v. Barrita, Inc., 

--- F. Supp. 2d ----, ----, 2014 WL 31739, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 

3, 2014) (citing cases). In Roberts, the Second Circuit 

contrasted alterations under the ADA with new construction, 

concluding that “alterations” seem to exclude “modifications that 

essentially preserve the status and condition of a facility, 

rather than rendering it materially ‘new’ in some sense.” 542 

F.3d at 370. It concluded that a court could consider the 

following non-exhaustive factors to determine whether a 

modification amounted to an alteration: 

1. The overall cost of the modification relative to 

the size (physical and financial) of the facility or 

relevant part thereof.

2. The scope of the modification (including what 

portion of the facility or relevant part thereof was 

modified).

3. The reason for the modification (including whether 

the goal is maintenance or improvement, and whether it 

is to change the purpose or function of the facility).

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 19 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20

4. Whether the modification affects only the 

facility’s surfaces or also structural attachments and 

fixtures that are part of the realty.

Id.8

Courts have emphasized that “Congress’ discussion of 

‘affecting usability’ focused on the ‘primary function” of a 

facility.” Kinney v. Yerusalim, 9 F.3d 1067, 1073 (3d Cir. 

1993); accord Alford v. City of Cannon Beach, No. CV–00–303–HU, 

2000 WL 33200554, at *6 (D. Or. Jan. 17, 2000). “Areas 

containing primary functions refer to those portions of a place 

of public accommodations where significant goods, services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations are 

provided,” such as “the path of travel [,] . . . bathrooms, 

telephones, and drinking fountains.” H.R. Rep. No. 101-485(III), 

reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 445, 487. Despite Delta King’s 

attempt to argue otherwise, it seems obvious that a hotel room 

and its bathroom are a primary function of a hotel. 

Although Delta King recounts all work that has been 

performed since the initial rehabilitation, plaintiff argues only 

 

8 The parties dispute, and the Ninth Circuit has not 

resolved, which party has the burden of proof on the alteration 

issue. In the absence of any guidance in the ADA or implementing 

regulations, the Second Circuit concluded that the plaintiff has 

the initial burden of production on the issue and meets that 

burden “by identifying a modification to a facility and by making 

a facially plausible demonstration that the modification is an 

alteration under the ADA.” Id. at 371. If the plaintiff meets 

this initial burden, the Second Circuit concluded that the 

“defendant then bears the burden of persuasion to establish that 

the modification is in fact not an alteration.” Id. Here, 

allocation of the burden on this issue would not affect the 

court’s conclusion. 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 20 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

21

that alterations occurred in 2008. Plaintiff relies on an 

article from May 19, 2008 in The Sacramento Bee describing a 

“six-figure makeover”:

Each of the 44 staterooms is being upgraded, with new 

furniture, bedding, HD-TVs and Wi-Fi connections . . .

. Other changes include new carpeting as well as new 

tables in lounges and on the scenic second-level 

outdoor deck . . . . The upgrades[ are] to be 

completed next month and [will] cost[] “several 

hundred thousand dollars . . . .”

(Thimesch Decl. Ex. 169.) 

According to Delta King, the hotel rooms were 

refurbished in 2000 and some shower and bathroom floors in the 

rooms were resurfaced in 2008. For the remodels in 2000, the 

“renovation” cost was approximately $700 per hotel room and 

occurred over two years. (C. Coyne Decl. ¶ 28.) The room 

renovations in 2000 included removing and replacing wallpaper, 

painting walls, replacing worn and broken blinds, lamps, side 

tables, and bed spreads. (Id.) According to Charles, “[a]ll 

replaced furniture and fixtures served the same function and were 

of substantially the same dimensions as the worn furniture and 

fixtures they replaced.” (Id.) In 2008 or 2009, Delta King

indicates that fiberglass sheeting was placed over the tile 

surfaces of the showers and bathroom floors in twenty to twentyfive hotel rooms. (Id. ¶¶ 26-27; M. Coyne Dep. at 241:14-1, 

245:5-8.) The fiberglass sheeting was installed in an effort to 

address a mold problem and provided a “water barrier that was 

attractive.” (C. Coyne Decl. ¶ 27.) 

Delta King’s descriptions of the hotel room remodels in 

2000 that cost approximately $30,800 and the installation of 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 21 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22

fiberglass sheeting on shower and bathroom floors in 2008 vary 

drastically from the reported “six-figure makeover” in 2008 that 

was described in The Sacramento Bee. Delta King objects to the 

court taking judicial notice of the The Sacramento Bee article, 

but does not respond to the alleged “six-figure makeover” in 

2008.9 In his deposition, however, Michael Coyne testified that 

Delta King had advertised having newly remodeled rooms in 2008. 

(M. Coyne Dep. at 242:2-7.) Taking all reasonable inferences in 

favor of plaintiff, it is unlikely Delta King advertised a 

remodel that consisted only of installing fiberglass sheeting to 

some of its shower and bathroom floors. A genuine dispute 

therefore exists as to the remodeling performed in 2008. 

With the only work Delta King identifies as having been 

performed in 2008--the shower and bathroom floor resurfacing--

the court also lacks sufficient details about those improvements. 

See H. Comm. on Educ. & Labor Rep. No. 485(II) (1990), reprinted 

in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 303, 394-95 (“Changes to floors may or may 

 

9 It is doubtful that the court can properly take 

judicial notice of The Sacramento Bee article. See Von Saher v. 

Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 578 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (“Courts may take judicial notice of publications 

introduced to ‘indicate what was in the public realm at the time, 

not whether the contents of those articles were in fact true.’”). 

But see Ritter v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 58 F.3d 454, 458-59 (9th 

Cir. 1995) (concluding that the district court did not err in 

taking judicial notice of layoffs in newspaper article because, 

under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), the layoffs “would be 

generally known in Southern California and [] would be capable of 

sufficiently accurate and ready determination”). 

Nonetheless, while the court does not rely on the

article in denying Delta King’s motion for summary adjudication 

with respect to alterations, it questions why Delta King failed 

to respond to the alleged 2008 “six-figure makeover” reported in 

the article. 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 22 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23

not affect accessibility or usability, depending upon the nature 

of the change involved.”). Although Delta King explains that the 

resurfacing provided a water barrier to remedy mold, the court 

lacks evidence explaining the process of installing the 

fiberglass sheeting and whether the work could have affected the 

usability of the bathrooms and showers. 

In Kinney, the Third Circuit held that resurfacing of 

streets affected the usability of the streets and thereby 

constituted an alteration under the ADA. 9 F.3d at 1073-74. The 

Third Circuit reasoned that resurfacing “involves more than minor 

repairs or maintenance” and, because resurfacing “helps to 

prevent damage to vehicles and injury to people,” the improvement 

from resurfacing makes the street “more usable in a fundamental 

way.” Id. By analogy, mold in a bathroom is not only unsightly, 

but could pose a health concern. A trier of fact could find that 

Delta King’s resurfacing eliminated any health risks and made the 

showers and bathrooms more usable for its guests. When 

considered in light of the mandate to interpret “usability” 

broadly and the absence of evidence about the cost and scope of 

the work, the court cannot find that the installation of the 

fiberglass sheeting did not constitute an alteration as a matter 

of law. 

Accordingly, because a genuine issue of material fact 

exists as to whether Delta King performed any alterations, the 

court must deny its motion for summary adjudication on that 

issue.10

 

10 The court need not address whether any modifications 

are readily achievable because that standard is relevant only if 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 23 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24

D. California Health and Safety Code Section 19956

Exception for Vertical Access 

California Health and Safety Code section 19956 

provides:

[T]he following types of privately funded multistory 

buildings do not require accessibility by ramp or 

elevator above and below the first floor: . . . (b) 

Any other privately funded multistoried building that 

is not a shopping center, shopping mall, or the

professional office of a health care provider, and 

that is less than three stories high or less than 

3,000 square feet per story if a reasonable portion of 

all facilities and accommodations normally sought and 

used by the public in such a building are accessible 

to and usable by persons with disabilities.

Cal. Health & Safety Code § 19956.11 In its memorandum, Delta 

King does not cite to any evidence showing that each deck is 

less than 3,000 square feet. Although plaintiff did not dispute 

 

the Delta King did not undergo any alterations.

 

11 Relying on subsection 2-105(b)(11)(B)(4) of the 1984 

version of Title 24, plaintiff argues that the exception provided 

in section 19956 is limited to facilities that were “existing” 

when the section became operative in 1970. Not only is this 

severely limiting interpretation of section 19956 inconsistent 

with the plain language of the statute and cases applying the 

section to facilities that were constructed after 1970, see, 

e.g., People ex rel. Deukmejian v. CHE, Inc., 150 Cal. App. 3d 

123 (4th Dist. 1983), it is also based on an incorrect reading of 

the 1984 version of Title 24. Subsection 2-105(b)(11)(B) 

identifies the various structures governed by Title 24 and 

subsection 2-105(b)(11)(B)(4) extends application to “existing 

privately funded public accommodations when alterations, 

structural repairs, or additions are made” to them. The 

subsection then refers to the section 19956 exception, indicating 

that public accommodations that come within section 19956 are not 

required to provide vertical access when alterations, structural 

repairs, or additions are made.

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 24 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

25

that each deck is less than 3,000 square feet, plaintiff’s 

counsel suggested at oral argument that each deck is 10,000 

square feet. Nonetheless, even if the court assumes that the 

square footage of the decks brings Delta King within section 

19956, Delta King is excused from providing access to the fourth 

and fifth decks only if “a reasonable portion of all facilities 

and accommodations” offered on the fourth and fifth decks are 

available on the first three decks. 

When discussing application of section 19956 to a 

restaurant, a California appellate court indicated that the 

section “would exempt a restaurant with accessible, equivalent 

dining areas on both the first and second floors from having to 

provide access to tables on the second floor.” People ex rel. 

Deukmejian v. CHE, Inc., 150 Cal. App. 3d 123, 136 (4th Dist. 

1983) (emphasis added). Plaintiff has established a genuine 

dispute as to whether the Delta Bar and Grill offerings on the 

third deck provide a “reasonable portion” or are equivalent to 

the offerings on the fourth deck. 

A trier of fact could find that seating offered at the 

base of a staircase does not provide the equivalent ambience, 

experience, and scenic view as seating at the Delta Bar and 

Grill. Cf. Donald v. Cafe Royale, Inc., 218 Cal. App. 3d 168,

182 (1st Dist. 1990) (finding that a restaurant seating area for 

disabled patrons in a separate “lower level lounge area” did not 

provide equal access to the “two raised tiers of the main dining 

area”). Disabled patrons also learned of the available seating 

only after inquiring whether they could order a drink from the 

inaccessible Delta Bar and Grill. (See M. Coyne Dep. at 168:18-

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 25 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26

169:5.) A trier of fact could also find that being able to hear 

a live band playing on a higher deck is not equivalent to being 

able to watch the band and partake in the live music experience. 

These findings would be consistent with the opinion of 

plaintiff’s expert, Peter Blanck, Ph.D., that the alternate 

seating and ability to hear the live music does not offer an 

equivalent accommodation and is stigmatizing for disabled 

patrons. (See Thimesch Decl. Ex. 200, ¶¶ 15, 23-26.) It is also 

undisputed that a TV is available for patrons at the Delta Bar 

and Grill, but not for patrons in the separate seating on the 

third deck. 

Accordingly, because a rational trier of fact could 

find that the first three decks do not provide a reasonable 

portion of the offerings on the fourth and fifth decks, the 

court will deny Delta King’s motion for summary judgment on the 

ground that section 19956 exempts it from having to provide 

vertical access to the fourth and fifth decks. 

E. Historic Exemptions During Restoration

Originally enacted in 1975, the purpose of the 

California Historical Building Code (“CHBC”) is to

provide alternative regulations and standards for the 

rehabilitation, preservation, restoration (including 

related reconstruction), or relocation of qualified 

historical buildings or structures . . . so as to 

preserve their original or restored architectural 

elements and features, to encourage energy 

conservation and a cost-effective approach to 

preservation, and to provide for the safety of the 

building occupants.

Cal. Health & Safety Code § 18951; see also Cal. Health & Safety 

Code § 18953 (“It is the intent of this part to provide means for 

the preservation of the historical value of qualified historical 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 26 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27

buildings or structures and, concurrently, . . . to provide 

reasonable availability to and usability by, the disabled.”). 

It is undisputed that the Delta King is a qualified 

historical structure under the CHBC because it has been 

designated as a historical site and is included on the National 

Register of Historical Places. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 

18955 (providing that qualified historical buildings or 

structures include those that have been “deemed of importance to 

the history, architecture, or culture of an area by an 

appropriate local or state governmental jurisdiction,” including 

“historical buildings or structures on existing or future 

national, state or local historical registers or official 

inventories”); (Post Decl. ¶ 3, Exs. 19, 20). 

At the time the Delta King was restored, section 8-1304

of the 1979 California Historical Building Code exempted “strict 

compliance” with the requirements for access and permitted 

“alternative provisions for access” in order to preserve the 

historical fabric of a structure if the following conditions were 

satisfied: 

(a) such alternative provisions shall be applied only 

on an item-by-item or case-by-case basis. (see Table 

8-13-1)

(b) the alternative standards are applied according to 

the priorities outlined in Table 13-2 whereby the 

alternative providing the most access is listed first.

(c) the official charged with enforcement of the 

standards shall provide written documentation stating 

the reasons for the application of the alternative 

standards. Such statement should include the opinion 

and/or comments of a representative local group of 

disabled people and shall be available to the public 

on request. 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 27 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28

(Thimesch Decl. Ex. 123 (1979 California State Historical 

Building Code, Title 24 Building Standards, Part 8, as reprinted 

in 1985).) If the alternative standards under section 8-1304 

would destroy the historical fabric or aspects, section 8-1306 

provided for an “exemption from the literal requirements for full 

and equal access” under the following conditions: 

(a) such exemption is considered only on an item by

item or case by case basis.

(b) interpretive exhibits and/or equal services of the 

exempted significant historical aspects are provided 

for the public in a location fully accessible to and 

useable by the disabled, including people with hearing 

and sight impairment. 

(c) services must be provided in an accessible 

location equal to those provided in the exempted 

location.

(d) the official charged with enforcement of the 

standards shall provide written documentation stating 

the reasons for the consequent exemption. Such 

statement shall include the opinion and/or comments of

a representative local group of disabled people and 

shall be available to the public on request.

(Id. Ex. 123.) 

Section 2-7101(b) of Title 24 of the 1984 California 

Building Code provided, “In existing buildings, when the 

enforcing agency determines that compliance with any regulation 

under this section would create an unreasonable hardship, an 

exception shall be granted when equivalent facilitation is 

provided.” (Post Decl. Ex. 29 at 25.) Section 2-422(c) of the 

1984 California Building Code indicated that an “unreasonable 

hardship” exists when compliance with the standard would make the 

project “unfeasible” based on:

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 28 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

1. The cost of providing access. 

2. The cost of all construction contemplated. 

3. The impact of the proposed improvements on 

financial feasibility of the project. 

4. The nature of the accessibility which would be 

gained or lost. 

5. The nature of the use of the facility under 

construction and its availability to handicapped 

persons.

(Id. Ex. 29 at 19.) It further required that “[t]he details of 

any finding of unreasonable hardship shall be recorded and 

entered in the files of the enforcing agency.” (Id.) 

Lastly, Health and Safety Code section 19957, which was 

effective as of July 1, 1970, provided, 

In cases of practical difficulty, unnecessary 

hardship, or extreme differences, a building 

department responsible for the enforcement of this 

part may grant exceptions from the literal 

requirements of the standards and specifications 

required by this part or permit the use of other 

methods or materials, but only when it is clearly 

evident that equivalent facilitation and protection 

are thereby secured.

Delta King contends that the Sacramento Building 

Department applied the relevant accessibility requirements to the 

extent feasible and, when the requirements compromised the 

historic fabric of the Delta King, the Building Department 

utilized the CHBC and granted exceptions. The City, Building 

Department, and Delta King are unable to locate the approved 

building plans and other correspondence related to the 

restoration and any granted exceptions. (See Post. Decl. Ex. 27 

(Klock-Johnson Dep.); M. Coyne Decl. ¶ 11.) Delta King therefore 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 29 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30

seeks to prove the existence of the requisite approvals and 

exceptions--and thereby compliance with the state accessibility 

standards--through individuals involved in the restoration and 

Delta King’s purported copy of the Manuscript Plan Set. 

Solon Wisham, Jr., was the assistant Sacramento city 

manager from 1981 to 1991 and “served as a liaison between the 

developers of the Delta King and the City of Sacramento.” 

(Wisham Decl. ¶ 5.) He indicates that the goal “was to find a 

way to preserve as much of the original appearance and design of 

the vessel as possible in a way consistent with then-existing 

standards as a hotel and public accommodation.” (Id. ¶ 7.) 

Wisham specifically explains,

Numerous ideas were discussed and ultimately the City, 

acting through its building department, exercised its 

discretion to determine what aspects of the California 

Building Code, inclusive of the Historic Building 

Code, would be applied to the vessel. . . . The 

decisions about access to the vessel, the number of 

ramps, the use of an exterior elevator on a floating 

elevator barge, decisions about what decks within the 

vessel would be rendered accessible to disabled person 

by use of an internally installed elevator, the 

decision to retain inherent maritime features such as 

coamings, door thresholds, and cambered docks all were 

compromises made by the City while balancing the 

objective of preserving the existing historical 

fabric, maintaining the character and silhouette of 

the vessel, with the intended operation of the vessel 

as a functioning hotel largely accessible to disabled 

persons.

(Id. ¶ 8.)

Tim Sullivan was the chief building inspector for the 

Building Department from 1984 to 1996. (Sullivan Decl. ¶ 2.) 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 30 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

31

Sullivan similarly recounts how the project required balancing 

preserving the historic characteristics of the Delta King against 

transforming it and providing accessibility to disabled persons. 

(Id. ¶ 5.) He specifically explains:

The tilt or camber of decks was considered, as were 

general path of travel and access to the various 

features within the vessel. Although I have no 

particular recollection of the discussion, . . . I 

understand and believe that [an] equivalent 

facilitation determination was made by the Building 

Department based upon the decision that cocktail 

seating and drinks would be available to disabled 

patrons (and others) on the third floor and that that 

was equivalent to the view, ambiance, and facility 

service made available on the fourth floor cocktail 

area.

(Id. ¶ 8.)

Edmund and Michael Coyne recount a similar process. 

(See E. Coyne Decl. ¶¶ 12, 16; M. Coyne Decl. ¶¶ 7-9.) Edmund 

recalls that the Sacramento Building Department made the 

following determinations and exemptions: 1) vertical access to 

the fourth and fifth decks was not required because equivalent 

facilities were provided on the first three decks; 2) the 

leveling of the original camber and tilt of many decks was not 

required; 3) the original openings, including windows, portholes, 

exterior door thresholds and coamings, need not be altered; and 

4) the original stairways and exterior doorways need not be 

altered. (E. Coyne Decl. ¶ 16.) 

Although all of the Building Department’s records were

lost or destroyed, Michael, who was “present during most of the 

construction,” was able to locate his copy of the Building 

Department’s Manuscript Plan Set. (M. Coyne Decl. ¶¶ 1, 5, 12.) 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 31 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

32

Michael indicates that his set did not include the Building 

Department’s notations, but he had “transcribe[d] all the hand 

written notes and details from the Building Department’s Approved 

Plan Set” on the Delta King’s copy. (Id. ¶ 12.) Notwithstanding 

the difficulty of reading the transcriptions on the copy before 

the court, it is questionable whether Michael’s copy is a 

complete copy of the final approved plan. For example, green 

handwritten notations state “TO BE UPDATED” on page A-6 and “This 

page needs to be updated” on page A-7. (See M. Coyne Decl. Ex. 7

at A-6, A-7.) 

While Delta King will ultimately have to rely on this 

copy and the faded recollections of the individuals involved in 

restoration of the Delta King to establish the grant of any 

exceptions, the copy and the individuals’ deposition testimony12

and declarations are insufficient to establish the absence of a 

genuine issue of material fact that the proper procedures were 

followed and particular accessibility exemptions were granted. 

 

12 Based on their deposition testimony, plaintiff objects 

to the court’s consideration of the declarations of Wisham, 

Sullivan, and Ed Coyne on the ground that they are sham 

affidavits. Because the court ultimately does not rely on the 

affidavits to grant Delta King’s motion for summary judgment, it 

need not resolve whether there is a clear and unambiguous 

difference between their deposition testimony and declarations. 

See Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989, 998 (9th Cir. 

2009) (providing that a court can strike an affidavit as a sham 

only if the court makes “a factual determination that the 

contradiction was actually a ‘sham’” and that “the inconsistency 

between a party’s deposition testimony and subsequent affidavit 

[is] clear and unambiguous”). Assessing these individuals’

credibility and the reliability of their memories is precisely 

the type of inquiry that should be resolved by the trier of fact, 

not by the court at summary judgment. See id. (“[A] court’s role 

in deciding a summary judgment motion is not to make credibility

determinations . . . .”). 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 32 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

33

As to the procedures followed, prerequisites for an 

exemption under section 8-1306 of the 1979 Historical Building 

Code were that “written documentation [memorialized] the reasons 

for the consequent exemption,” including “the opinion and/or 

comments [of] a representative local group of disabled people and 

shall be available to the public on request.” (Thimesch Decl. 

Ex. 123.) None of evidence before the court suggests that the 

Building Department worked with or solicited input from a 

representative local group of disabled people. Sullivan 

described the procedure for granting “handicap hardship 

exceptions” as follows:

With a review of the plans, a determination of what 

would be required to gain full compliance, how that 

could affect the structure probably from a historical 

standpoint, review of the accommodations that were 

offered on an accessible level, a decision then would 

be made to what was a reasonable accommodation or not.

(Sullivan Dep. at 75:7-15.) He does not recall consulting with 

any disabled advocacy groups, the Mobility Compliance Section of 

the Department of Rehabilitation, or the State Department of 

Rehabilitation during the restoration. (Id. at 115:12-116:6.) 

The lack of evidence showing compliance with the requirements of 

sections 8-1304 and 8-1306 raises a genuine dispute as to whether 

those sections were in fact utilized to grant any exceptions. 

There also remains a dispute about whether the 

rationale for granting certain alleged exemptions was based on 

preserving the historic fabric of the Delta King or simply 

because the Delta King was considered a vessel, not a building or 

structure. When explaining the approval process, Wisham 

recollects, 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 33 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

34

[T]he City, acting through its building department, 

exercised its discretion to determine what aspects of 

the California Building Code, inclusive of the 

Historic Building Code, would be applied to the 

vessel. Specifically, I recall decisions by the City 

that portions of the applicable building code could 

not possibly apply to this particular project. To 

begin with, the Delta King has a hull and floats, 

therefore, provisions of the building code that did 

not consider hulls, decks and floatation, did not 

apply. 

(Wisham Decl. ¶ 8.) It is unclear what “provisions of the 

building code” were determined inapplicable simply because the 

Delta King has a hull and floats, not because the Building 

Department completed the requisite balancing between preserving 

its historic fabric and providing accessibility. During his 

deposition, Wisham also testified that he was unaware of any 

“exceptions . . . that were granted formally by the building 

department” for the lack of access to the fourth deck or for the

gangways. (Wisham Dep. at 66:10-67:24.)

Accordingly, because genuine disputes of fact remain as 

to whether the Building Department granted particular 

accessibility exemptions, the court will deny Delta King’s motion

for summary judgment based any such exemptions. 

F. Motion for a Stay

In the event the court does not summarily adjudicate 

the alleged Building Department exemptions, Delta King requests 

that the court stay the action so it can re-apply for the 

appropriate exemptions from the Building Department. In a letter 

dated September 17, 1992, the California Attorney General advised 

local building officials that retroactive hardship exceptions may 

be granted. (Delta King’s Req. for Judicial Notice Ex. A, app. 1 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 34 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

35

at 1.) The Attorney General specifically explained, “A hardship 

exception may be granted post-construction where the owner 

establishes that under the facts that existed at the time the 

relevant building plans were approved, an exception would have 

been granted.” (Id.) 

“The District Court has broad discretion to stay 

proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own 

docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); accord

CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (“A 

district court has inherent power to control the disposition of 

the causes on its docket in a manner which will promote economy 

of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”). 

The Ninth Circuit has held that a court may stay a case pending 

resolution of administrative proceedings: 

“A trial court may, with propriety, find it is 

efficient for its own docket and the fairest course 

for the parties to enter a stay of an action before 

it, pending resolution of independent proceedings 

which bear upon the case. This rule applies whether 

the separate proceedings are judicial, administrative, 

or arbitral in character, and does not require that 

the issues in such proceedings are necessarily 

controlling of the action before the court.”

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1111 (9th Cir. 2005) 

(quoting Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 

863-64 (9th Cir. 1979)). When determining whether to grant a 

stay, a court must weigh the competing interests, including “the 

possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the 

hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required 

to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in 

terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and 

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 35 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

36

questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” 

CMAX, Inc., 300 F.2d at 268.

Despite Delta King’s request for a stay so that it can 

apply for retroactive exemptions, it fails to explain why it has 

not already initiated such proceedings with the Sacramento 

Building Department. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit over three 

years ago and the trial is set for December 9, 2014. Now, less 

than three months before trial, Delta King requests a stay to 

accomplish what it could have pursued over the past three years. 

Furthermore, any exemptions Delta King may receive from the

Sacramento Building Department will not affect plaintiff’s ADA 

claims. Congress and the state of California have unequivocally 

expressed their desire to eliminate discrimination against 

disabled individuals, and this court will not delay plaintiff’s 

attempt to bring that goal to fruition. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Delta King’s motion for 

summary judgment or, alternatively, for a stay be, and the same 

hereby is, DENIED.

Dated: September 25, 2014

Case 2:11-cv-02230-WBS-AC Document 88 Filed 09/25/14 Page 36 of 36