Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-08-55946/USCOURTS-ca9-08-55946-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAURIZIO ANTONINETTI,  Nos. 08-55867,

Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross- 08-55946,

Appellee, 09-55327,

09-55425 v.  D.C. No. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.,

3:05-cv-01660-J- Defendant-Appellee, Cross- WMC Appellant.

OPINION 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Napoleon A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

April 7, 2010—Pasadena, California

Filed July 26, 2010

Before: Daniel M. Friedman,* Dorothy W. Nelson, and

Stephen Reinhardt, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Friedman

*Daniel M. Friedman, United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. 

10627

Case: 08-55946 07/26/2010 ID: 7416550 DktEntry: 60-1 Page: 1 of 19
COUNSEL

Amy B. Vandeveld, San Diego, California, for the plaintiff,

appellant and cross-appellee.

John F. Scalia (argued), Matthew H. Sorensen, Virginia E.

Robinson, Greenberg Traurig L.L.P., McLean, Virginia,

Gregory F. Hurley, Greenberg, Traurig, L.L.P., Irvine, California, for the defendant, appellee, and cross-appellant.

OPINION

FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge:

This case presents several issues involving the application

of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“Disabilities Act” or

“Act”) to a wheelchair-bound customer of the well-known

Mexican fast-food restaurants operated by Chipotle Mexican

Grill, Inc. (“Chipotle”). The question on the merits is whether

the actions Chipotle took to accommodate the customer’s disability satisfied the requirements of the Act and its implementing guidelines. We hold that they did not and accordingly

that Chipotle violated the Act. Another question is whether

the district court erred in denying the customer injunctive

relief. We hold that, under the circumstances, the district court

should grant injunctive relief. We also vacate the district

court’s award of attorney’s fees, which was substantially less

than the customer had sought, and direct reconsideration of

the amount of the fee in light of our ruling on the merits. We

ANTONINETTI v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL 10631

Case: 08-55946 07/26/2010 ID: 7416550 DktEntry: 60-1 Page: 2 of 19
affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand to

the district court for further proceedings.

I

A. The case arises out of visits by the appellant, Maurizio

Antoninetti, to two Chipotle restaurants in California, one in

San Diego and one in Encinitas. Antoninetti is a paraplegic

who uses a wheelchair for mobility. He visited the San Diego

restaurant six times, four times as a customer and twice to

gather evidence for this litigation. He visited the Encinitas

restaurant twice, once as a customer and once in connection

with discovery proceedings in this case.

The physical arrangements of the two restaurants were,

insofar as the issues in this case are involved, substantially the

same. Customers walk along a line that is next to a long

counter containing the different foods that are available and

on which the customers’ individual orders are prepared. The

customers’ walking line is separated from this “food preparation counter” by a separator wall. This wall rises 45 inches

above the floor; the food preparation counter is 34-35 inches

high.

As customers proceed through the line, they see the different foods available by looking over the wall, and they tell the

food service employees behind the food preparation counter

what they want. There are many kinds of foods available—

such as salsa, guacamole, cheese, and lettuce—and each

ingredient is described on written menus in the restaurant as

well as on large menu boards above the food preparation

counter. The employees then assemble the customer’s order—

customizing the burrito, taco, or other Mexican food selected

—while the customer watches.

At the end of the food preparation counter is a 4 foot-long

counter containing the cash register and a 2-3 foot-long empty

space. This counter, called the “transaction station,” is 34

10632 ANTONINETTI v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL

Case: 08-55946 07/26/2010 ID: 7416550 DktEntry: 60-1 Page: 3 of 19
inches high, and is where the customer pays for and receives

the order. The wall ends where this counter begins. Beyond

the transaction station is a dining room with fixed seating,

which customers may use after receiving their order. 

The serving area of the restaurant is shown in the first photograph below. The second photograph shows the displayed

food, as seen from above.

The parties stipulated that the average eye level of persons

in wheelchairs is 43 to 51 inches above the restaurant floor;

and that, at a distance of 12 inches from the wall, a person at

any height within that average range cannot see the food preparation counter or the food on display there.

ANTONINETTI v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL 10633

Case: 08-55946 07/26/2010 ID: 7416550 DktEntry: 60-1 Page: 4 of 19
According to Chipotle, it “strives to offer a unique experience consisting of the architecture, décor, and music of its restaurants, the aroma of the food, the appearance of a

customer’s entrée, friendly staff, a tradition of excellent customer service, [the] ability to customize one’s entrée, and . . .

the taste of the food.” It describes this as the “Chipotle experience.”

Prior to this litigation, Chipotle had an unwritten policy of

accommodating customers in wheelchairs who wanted to see

the available food ingredients or watch the preparation of

their food. When customers in wheelchairs so indicated,

employees were required to show them samples of the available foods in serving spoons, held in tongs or in plastic portion cups, or to assemble the food either at the “transaction

station” or at a table in the restaurant’s seating area.

In February 2007, because of this litigation, Chipotle

adopted its written “Customers With Disabilities Policy” (the

“written policy”). This policy provides that “the restaurant

staff will offer . . . [a] customer with a disability (for example,

a visual or mobility impairment)”

a suitable accommodation based on the individual

circumstances, and will be responsive to the customer’s requests. Depending on the circumstances, our

crew member or manager may ask the customer if

we can accommodate them during their visit. Examples of some of the ways we accommodate individuals include: 

1. Samples of the food can be placed in

soufflé cups and shown or handed to

the customer.

2. Some customers may prefer an opportunity to see or even sample the food at

a table. 

10634 ANTONINETTI v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL

Case: 08-55946 07/26/2010 ID: 7416550 DktEntry: 60-1 Page: 5 of 19
3. Customers may simply wish to have

the food or food preparation process

described to them. 

4. Or combinations of the above accommodations with any other reasonable

accommodation requested or appropriate for the individual. 

Antoninetti has not visited either restaurant since this written policy was implemented. The parties have stipulated,

however, that Antoninetti still wishes to enjoy the “Chipotle

experience”—seeing all the ingredients on display and watching his burrito assembled and rolled—quickly and without

inconveniencing employees or other customers. 

B. Following his experiences as a customer in the two

restaurants, Antoninetti filed the present suit against Chipotle

in the United States District Court for the Southern District of

California. He alleged that Chipotle’s treatment of

wheelchair-bound customers violates the Disabilities Act. He

sought injunctive relief and damages under a California statute that authorizes damages for violations of the federal Disabilities Act. 

After granting partial summary judgment and holding a

bench trial, the district court:

1. Held that Chipotle’s earlier unwritten policy for

accommodating customers in wheelchairs violated the Disabilities Act, but that its current “written policy” complied

with the Act;

2. Denied injunctive relief;

3. Held that Antoninetti was a prevailing party in the litigation, and awarded him attorney’s fees of

$136,537.83—considerably less than he had sought; and

ANTONINETTI v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL 10635

Case: 08-55946 07/26/2010 ID: 7416550 DktEntry: 60-1 Page: 6 of 19
4. Awarded him $5,000 under the California damages

statute (discussed in part V below).

II

[1] Title III of the Disabilities Act requires that “public

accommodations” built for first occupancy after January 26,

1993, be “readily accessible to and usable by individuals with

disabilities.” See 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(1). To satisfy this standard, “[n]ew construction and alterations . . . [must] comply

with the standards for accessible design” promulgated by the

Attorney General of the United States. See 28 C.F.R.

36.406(a). The Attorney General has issued detailed, primarily architectural, standards—known as the Guidelines—that

govern the applicability of the Act to a variety of public

accommodations. Failure to comply with the Guidelines constitutes prohibited “discrimination for the purposes of” the

Disabilities Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a). The parties do not

dispute that the two Chipotle restaurants are places of public

accommodation, built after January 26, 1993, and therefore

must comply with the Guidelines. Not surprisingly, the parties

disagree about which Guideline governs this case. 

[2] A. Antoninetti argues that Guideline § 4.33.3 applies

to Chipotle’s food preparation counters. That Guideline provides, in pertinent part: 

Placement of Wheelchair Locations. Wheelchair

areas shall be an integral part of any fixed seating

plan and shall be provided so as to provide people

with physical disabilities a choice of admission

prices and lines of sight comparable to those for

members of the general public. They shall adjoin an

accessible route that also serves as a means of egress

in case of emergency. At least one companion fixed

seat shall be provided next to each wheelchair seating area. When the seating capacity exceeds 300,

wheelchair spaces shall be provided in more than

10636 ANTONINETTI v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL

Case: 08-55946 07/26/2010 ID: 7416550 DktEntry: 60-1 Page: 7 of 19
one location. Readily removable seats may be

installed in wheelchair spaces when the spaces are

not required to accommodate wheelchair users. 

28 C.F.R. § 36, App. A, § 4.33.3. Antoninetti argues that

because Guideline § 4.33.3 guarantees “lines of sight comparable to those for members of the general public,” the wall

violates that Guideline because it prevents customers in

wheelchairs from seeing the food preparation counter. The

district court granted summary judgment to Chipotle on this

contention, holding that the plain language of this Guideline

does not cover Chipotle’s food preparation counter. We agree.

[3] The basic flaw in Antoninetti’s contention is that

Guideline § 4.33.3 deals with the “[p]lacement of

[w]heelchair [l]ocations” as “an integral part of any fixed

seating plan.” Id. The food service area of the two restaurants

is not “part of any fixed seating plan,” because there are no

seats there, fixed or mobile, nor any “wheelchair locations”

that have been “place[d].” The customers move through the

service line, past the food preparation station, and on to the

cash register. Only after doing so do they proceed to the seating area in the restaurant.

Furthermore, Guideline § 4.33.3 does not govern here

because it addresses a different situation, namely the accessibility for the handicapped of fixed-seating structures in which

people view performances or events, such as theatres, concert

halls, athletic stadia, and the like. See, e.g., Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D.C. Arena L.P., 117 F.3d 579, 583 (D.C. Cir.

1997). Guideline § 4.33.3 requires “admission prices and lines

of sight comparable to those for members of the general public.” 28 C.F.R. § 36, App. A, § 4.33.3. It also requires that

“[a]t least one companion fixed seat shall be provided next to

each wheelchair seating area” and that “[w]hen the seating

capacity exceeds 300, wheelchair spaces shall be provided in

more than one location.” Id.

ANTONINETTI v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL 10637

Case: 08-55946 07/26/2010 ID: 7416550 DktEntry: 60-1 Page: 8 of 19
B. Chipotle argues, and the district court held, that Guideline § 7.2 provides the governing standard here. That Guideline, titled “Sales and Service Counters, Teller Windows,

Information Counters,” (in § 7.2(2)) provides: 

At ticketing counters, teller stations in a bank, registration counters in hotels and motels, box office

ticket counters, and other counters that may not have

a cash register but at which goods or services are

sold or distributed, either: 

(i) a portion of the main counter which is a

minimum of 36 [inches] . . . in length shall

be provided with a maximum height of 36

[inches] . . . or

(ii) an auxiliary counter with a maximum

height of 36 [inches] . . . in close proximity

to the main counter shall be provided; or 

(iii) equivalent facilitation shall be provided

(e.g., at a hotel registration counter, equivalent facilitation might consist of: (1) provision of a folding shelf attached to the main

counter on which an individual with disabilities can write, and (2) use of the space

on the side of the counter or at the concierge desk, for handing materials back and

forth).

28 C.F.R. § 36, App. A, § 7.2(2).

We agree with the district court that this provision applies.

The food service areas of the two restaurants are “counters”

and the preparation of the customers’ food orders is the sale

and distribution of “goods or services.” The “goods” are the

food itself, and the “services” are the preparation of the meal

the customer orders.

10638 ANTONINETTI v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL

Case: 08-55946 07/26/2010 ID: 7416550 DktEntry: 60-1 Page: 9 of 19
[4] C. The next question is whether the two restaurants

comply with that Guideline, which includes the requirement

that “a portion of the main counter” have “a maximum

height” of 36 inches. Chipotle contends that this requirement

is satisfied because the food preparation counter adjoins the

transaction station, which is 34 inches high, and therefore that

either a “portion of the main counter” or an “auxiliary counter” is below the 36 inch maximum height. The district court

properly rejected this argument.

[5] Under the Guidelines, the food preparation counter and

the transaction station are different entities, even though they

are next to each other and adjoined. As the district court

stated, these counters “serve different functions.” The food

preparation counter is where the different food products are

located, the customers view, select, and customize the burrito,

taco, or other Mexican food they select, and the food service

employees prepare the order. The transaction station, which

includes the cash register, is where customers pay for and collect the food they have ordered. Because the portion of the

counter that Chipotle relies on as being less than 36 inches

high is neither a “portion of the main” food preparation

counter nor an “auxiliary” food preparation counter, the

requirements of either Guideline §§ 7.2(2)(i) or 7.2(2)(ii) are

not met. In these circumstances, the wall conceals the food

preparation counter from wheelchair-bound customers and

thus prevents those customers from having the experience of

non-disabled customers of fully participating in the selection

and preparation of their order at the food preparation counter.

The wall subjects them to a disadvantage that non-disabled

customers do not suffer.

[6] D. Guideline 7.2(2) provides that, if a counter does

not meet the height requirements set forth in § 7.2(2)(i) or

§ 7.2(2)(ii): 

[E]quivalent facilitation shall be provided: (e.g., at a

hotel registration counter, equivalent facilitation

ANTONINETTI v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL 10639

Case: 08-55946 07/26/2010 ID: 7416550 DktEntry: 60-1 Page: 10 of 19
might consist of: (1) provision of a folding shelf

attached to the main counter on which an individual

with disabilities can write, and (2) use of the space

on the side of the counter or at the concierge desk,

for handing materials back and forth).

28 C.F.R. § 36, App. A, § 7.2(2)(iii). The Guidelines define

“[e]quivalent facilitation” as:

Departures from particular technical and scoping

requirements . . . by the use of other designs and

technologies . . . where the alternative designs and

technologies used will provide substantially equivalent or greater access to and usability of the facility.

Id. § 36, App. A, § 2.2.

The district court held that Chipotle’s written policy constituted “equivalent facilitation,” but that its prior unwritten policy did not, because the written policy “imposes two new

requirements,” namely:

(1) . . . [I]t is the responsibility of the manager on

duty at the [r]estaurant, rather than his or her crew

members, to carry out the policy . . . and (2) . . .

[T]he manager on duty must affirmatively inform the

customer with a disability of the various accommodations options without waiting for the customer to

request them through oral communications or nonoral cues.

[7] Initially, the parties dispute whether any “policy” may

constitute “equivalent facilitation.” The issue, however, is not

the form in which a policy is adopted and applied, but

whether the substance of the policy satisfies the Guideline

requirements of “equivalent facilitation.” The two “new

requirements” of the written policy that the district court

relied on to show “equivalent facilitation” are unavailing

10640 ANTONINETTI v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL

Case: 08-55946 07/26/2010 ID: 7416550 DktEntry: 60-1 Page: 11 of 19
because they relate only to the manner of applying that policy,

not its substance. 

[8] As noted, the presence of the wall in the two restaurants significantly reduced Antoninetti’s ability to enjoy the

“Chipotle experience.” From his wheelchair, he could not see

and evaluate the various available foods and decide which or

how much of each he wanted. He also could not watch the

food service employee combine those ingredients to form his

order. The substitutes that Chipotle provided—showing him

samples of the individual foods in serving spoons, held in

tongs or in plastic cups, or assembling the food at the “transaction station” or at a table in the seating area—do not constitute “equivalent facilitation” because they do not involve “use

of other designs and technologies” or “provide [him with]

substantially equivalent or greater access to and usability of

the facility.” They merely provide a substitute experience that

lacks the customer’s personal participation in the selection

and preparation of the food that the full “Chipotle experience”

furnishes.

In light of this conclusion, we need not decide whether, as

Antoninetti and the amici argue, “equivalent facilitation”

requires that the facilitating “alternative designs and techniques” be architectural or physical, and cannot be a particular

kind of service or policy.

[9] In sum, Chipotle’s treatment of Antoninetti during his

visits as a customer of the two restaurants violated the Disabilities Act, because it did not comply with the Guidelines.

III

[10] The enforcement provisions of the Disabilities Act, 42

U.S.C. § 12188, provide that the “remedy and procedures” of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(a), are

available “to any person who is being subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of this subchapter.”

ANTONINETTI v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL 10641

Case: 08-55946 07/26/2010 ID: 7416550 DktEntry: 60-1 Page: 12 of 19
42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1). The referenced provision of the

Civil Rights Act states that a “person aggrieved” by a violation of that Act may file “a civil action for preventive relief,

including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(a). The Disabilities Act provides

that, in cases of discrimination in places of public accommodation,

injunctive relief shall include an order to alter facilities to make such facilities readily accessible to and

usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent

required by this subchapter. Where appropriate,

injunctive relief shall also include requiring the provision of an auxiliary aid or service, modification of

a policy, or provision of alternative methods, to the

extent required by this subchapter.

42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2).

Injunctive relief is the sole remedy available to private parties under the Disabilities Act; it does not authorize a claim

for money damages. See, e.g., Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856,

858 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Antoninetti sought an injunction requiring Chipotle to

lower the wall that prevented wheelchair-bound customers

from observing the food preparation counters in the two restaurants.

The district court denied an injunction. It applied the traditional equity test: injunctive relief is appropriate when a party

demonstrates “(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2)

that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are

inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering

the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant,

a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” See

10642 ANTONINETTI v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL

Case: 08-55946 07/26/2010 ID: 7416550 DktEntry: 60-1 Page: 13 of 19
eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391

(2006). 

The court found that Antoninetti had failed to show irreparable injury because he had not revisited either restaurant after

Chipotle adopted its written policy and because his “purported

desire to return to the [r]estaurants is neither concrete nor sincere or supported by the facts.” It also stated that Antoninetti’s “history as a plaintiff in accessibility litigation supports

this Court’s finding that his purported desire to return to the

[r]estaurants is not sincere. Since immigrating to the United

States in 1991, Plaintiff has sued over twenty business entities

for alleged accessibility violations, and, in all (but one) of

those cases, he never returned to the establishment he sued

after settling the case and obtaining a cash payment.”

Courts must tread carefully before construing a Disability

Act plaintiff’s history of litigation against him. As we have

noted more than once, “[f]or the [Disabilities Act] to yield its

promise of equal access for the disabled, it may indeed be

necessary and desirable for committed individuals to bring

serial litigation advancing the time when public accommodations will be compliant with the [Disabilities Act].” D’Lil v.

Best W. Encina Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031, 1040 (9th Cir.

2008) (quoting Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d

1047, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Samuel R. Bagnestos, The

Perversity of Limited Civil Rights Remedies: The Case of

“Abusive” ADA Litigation, 54 UCLA L. Rev. 1, 5 (2006))).

We must therefore be “particularly cautious” regarding “credibility determinations that rely on a plaintiff’s past [Disabilities Act] litigation.” Id. 

[11] In any event, in its present posture, this is a quite different case from the one the district court decided. We have

held that the wall in the two restaurants violates the Disabilities Act, and that neither Chipotle’s new or old policies ameliorated the violation. Considering all the circumstances,

including particularly the statutory violations we have found

ANTONINETTI v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL 10643

Case: 08-55946 07/26/2010 ID: 7416550 DktEntry: 60-1 Page: 14 of 19
and the fact that an injunction is the only relief available to

a private party under the Act, it would be an abuse of discretion for the district court now to deny injunctive relief. 

[12] Accordingly, we shall reverse the district court’s

denial of such relief and remand the case with instructions to

that court to enter an appropriate injunction. The precise contours of such an injunction are for the district court to determine in the first instance. 

In view of that conclusion and disposition, we need not

address the question, which the parties vigorously dispute but

which the district court did not decide, whether the Disabilities Act authorizes a district court to deny injunctive relief

after finding a violation of the Act. This court has refrained

from deciding “whether the [Disabilities Act] forecloses the

possibility that a court might exercise its equitable discretion

in fashioning relief for violations” of the Act. See Long v.

Coast Resorts, Inc., 267 F.3d 918, 923 (9th Cir. 2001). It has

stated, however, that “[t]he standard requirements for equitable relief need not be satisfied when an injunction is sought

to prevent the violation of a federal statute which specifically

provides for injunctive relief.” Silver Stage Partners, Ltd. v.

City of Desert Hot Springs, 251 F.3d 814, 827 (9th Cir. 2001)

(quoting Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 934 F.2d

1064, 1074 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Joshua A. v. Rocklin Unified Sch. Dist., 559 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting

that injunctive relief under the “stay put” provision of the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act “requires no specific showing on the part of the moving party, and no balancing of equities by the court”).

IV

[13] Under the Disabilities Act, “the court . . . in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney’s fee, including litigation expenses, and costs.” 42 U.S.C.

§ 12205. As the Supreme Court recently reiterated, under fed10644 ANTONINETTI v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL

Case: 08-55946 07/26/2010 ID: 7416550 DktEntry: 60-1 Page: 15 of 19
eral fee-shifting statutes “the lodestar approach” is “the guiding light” in determining a “reasonable” fee. See Perdue v.

Kenny A., 599 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 1662, 1671-73 (2010)

(internal quotation marks omitted). Under that method, the

court first determines the appropriate hourly rate for the work

performed, and then multiplies that amount by the number of

hours properly expended in doing the work. Id. Although “in

extraordinary circumstances” the amount produced by the

lodestar calculation may be increased, “there is a strong presumption that the lodestar is sufficient.” Id. at 1669.

In its two opinions determining a reasonable attorney’s fee

in this case, the district court apparently applied the lodestar

method. Neither order explicitly stated or explained the

hourly rate that the court used. Antoninetti’s lawyer stated at

the hearing on attorney’s fees that she was “requesting” an

hourly rate of $375, which Chipotle did not challenge; the district court apparently used this figure in its calculations.

The district court held that the fee awarded should reflect

the “limited success” Antoninetti achieved. The court pointed

out that he had prevailed on only two of his claims: that Chipotle’s earlier policy violated the Act, and that he was entitled

to damages under the California statute. The district court

ruled that Antoninetti’s “billing records make it impossible

for the Court to identify specific hours associated with unsuccessful claims” and that it was “appropriate to simply reduce

the award by a designated amount.”

Antoninetti sought attorney’s fees of $546,151.33. Because

of his limited success, the court “F[OU]ND[ ] that plaintiff is

entitled to one-quarter of the attorneys’ fees that he has

requested,” and awarded him $136,537.83.

The results of this litigation are now quite different than

they were when the district court made that award. Under our

decision today, Antoninetti has prevailed on the two major

issues that he lost before the district court. We have held that

ANTONINETTI v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL 10645

Case: 08-55946 07/26/2010 ID: 7416550 DktEntry: 60-1 Page: 16 of 19
Chipotle’s treatment of him in the two restaurants violated the

Disabilities Act, and that the district court must provide

injunctive relief.

[14] In light of this changed outcome, the district court

should reexamine and reconsider its attorney’s fee award. We

express no view on what would be a reasonable fee in light

of the changed circumstances. That determination is one that

initially is for the informed discretion of the district court.

V

The California Disabled Persons Act (“California Act”)

provides that violation of an individual’s rights under the Disabilities Act also constitutes a violation of the California Act.

Cal. Civ. Code § 54(c). One who commits such violation is

“liable for each offense for the actual damages and any

amount as may be determined by a jury, or the court sitting

without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount

of actual damages but in no case less than one thousand dollars ($1,000), and attorney’s fees as may be determined by the

court in addition thereto.” Cal. Civ. Code § 54.3.

[15] In order “to maintain an action for damages pursuant

to [the California Act] an individual must . . . establish[ ] that

he or she was denied equal access on a particular occasion.”

Donald v. Café Royale, Inc., 218 Cal. App. 3d 168, 183 (Cal.

Ct. App. 1990) (emphasis omitted). Antoninetti therefore

must show that “he actually presented himself to the restaurant on a particular occasion, as any other customer would do,

with the intent of being . . . served and to purchase food . . .

in the manner offered . . . . [and] actually encountered access

to . . . the restaurant that was not full and equal.” Reycraft v.

Lee, 177 Cal. App. 4th 1211, 1226 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).

Antoninetti made eight visits to the two restaurants, five as

a customer and three in connection with his lawsuit. The district court awarded him $1,000 damages under the California

10646 ANTONINETTI v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL

Case: 08-55946 07/26/2010 ID: 7416550 DktEntry: 60-1 Page: 17 of 19
Act for each of his five visits as a customer, but did not make

any award for his three litigation-related visits. The record

indicates that these damages awards were based on Chipotle’s

violations of the Guidelines in the restaurants’ parking lots

(an issue not here disputed), not on the violations of the Act

in the food service areas that we have found. Chipotle has

since rectified the parking lot violations. In his notice of

appeal, Antoninetti challenges the district court’s judgment

“with respect to the denial of additional damages . . . based

upon violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act by

Chipotle . . . . [but] does not appeal the amount of damages

already awarded.”

[16] The violations of the Disabilities Act we have found

are that, because of the wall, Antoninetti was unable to see the

food arranged on the food counter or the preparation of his

order, as non-wheelchair-bound customers could do, and thus

was unable to enjoy the “Chipotle experience.” Those violations necessarily occurred only when he visited the restaurants

to purchase food and sat in line in his wheelchair. On those

visits when he was not seeking to purchase food or to have the

“Chipotle experience,” Antoninetti cannot recover money

damages under the California Act.

It is unclear whether Antoninetti is challenging the district

court’s failure to award damages for the five food service area

violations we have found (in addition to the parking lot violations), or, if so, whether he has properly preserved that issue.

In his notice of appeal, he challenged the district court’s judgment “with respect to the denial of additional damages”—an

ambiguous phrase that could cover only the litigation-related

visits, or also could cover the food service area violations.

The record does not show whether Antoninetti purchased food

on any of his three litigation-related visits, although he stated

in his opening brief: “Nor was any evidence offered at any

time that Antoninetti’s purchases during these [litigationrelated] visits were made in bad faith or with fraud or deceit.”

Moreover, the district court has not considered the amount of

ANTONINETTI v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL 10647

Case: 08-55946 07/26/2010 ID: 7416550 DktEntry: 60-1 Page: 18 of 19
additional damages, if any, that should be awarded for the

violations not related to parking. 

[17] We vacate the damages award and remand for further

proceedings on this issue.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the district court is affirmed insofar as it

ruled that Chipotle’s unwritten earlier policy violated the Disabilities Act. The portions of the judgment determining that

Chipotle’s written policy did not violate the Act and that

Antoninetti was not entitled to an injunction are reversed, and

the case is remanded to the district court to enter a judgment

that Chipotle violated the Disabilities Act and to issue appropriate injunctive relief. The portions of the judgment that

awarded an attorney’s fee of $136,537.83 and awarded damages of $5,000 under the California Act are vacated and the

case is remanded for the district court to reconsider those

issues.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART,

VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.

10648 ANTONINETTI v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL

Case: 08-55946 07/26/2010 ID: 7416550 DktEntry: 60-1 Page: 19 of 19