Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-13-55808/USCOURTS-ca9-13-55808-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eddie Bauer
Appellee
Chris Kohler
Appellant
Presidio International, Inc.

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRIS KOHLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PRESIDIO INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

DBA Armani Exchange #215,

Defendant,

EDDIE BAUER, A Delaware LLC, 

DBA Eddie Bauer Outlet #R162,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-55808

D.C. No.

2:10-cv-04680-

PSG-PJW

CHRIS KOHLER,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PRESIDIO INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

DBA Armani Exchange #215,

Defendant,

EDDIE BAUER, A Delaware LLC, 

DBA Eddie Bauer Outlet #R162,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-56217

D.C. No.

2:10-cv-04680-

PSG-PJW

OPINION

 

 

 

 Case: 13-55808, 03/20/2015, ID: 9464862, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 1 of 12
2 KOHLER V. EDDIE BAUER

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

February 3, 2015—Pasadena, California

Filed March 20, 2015

Before: Stephen Reinhardt and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit 

Judges, and J. Frederick Motz,

* Senior District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Motz

SUMMARY**

Americans with Disabilities Act

The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district 

court’s judgment after a bench trial in an action under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act and California state law.

Vacating the district court’s judgment regarding an 

alleged violation of an ADA requirement that a store 

 *The Honorable J. Frederick Motz, Senior United States District Judge 

for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

 ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has 

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 

 Case: 13-55808, 03/20/2015, ID: 9464862, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 2 of 12
KOHLER V. EDDIE BAUER 3

checkout counter be at most thirty-six inches high, the panel 

held that under Strong v. Valdez Fine Foods, 724 F.3d 1042 

(9th Cir. 2013), the plaintiff was not required to present 

expert evidence of the counter height. The panel held that 

the store’s provision of a clipboard was not an “equivalent 

facilitation” making the counter “accessible” under 

California law.

Following Kohler v. Flava Enters., Inc., 2015 WL 

968232 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2015), the panel held that a dressing 

room bench that was sixty inches long, rather than fortyeight inches, as required by the 1991 ADA Accessibility 

Guidelines, qualified as an equivalent facilitation because 

the plaintiff was able to make a parallel transfer onto it from 

a wheelchair.

The panel affirmed the district court’s ruling that a claim 

of blocked aisles did not constitute an ADA violation.

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of the 

defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees under section 55 of 

the California Disabled Persons Act. The panel held that 

under Hubbard v. SoBreck, LLC, 554 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 

2009), section 55 was preempted by the ADA’s provision of 

fees for prevailing defendants only in rare circumstances.

 Case: 13-55808, 03/20/2015, ID: 9464862, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 3 of 12
4 KOHLER V. EDDIE BAUER

COUNSEL

Scottlyn J. Hubbard IV (argued), Law Offices of Lynn 

Hubbard, Chico, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant/CrossAppellee.

Jon D. Meer (argued), Myra B. Villamor, and Andrew C. 

Crane, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Los Angeles, California, for 

Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

OPINION

MOTZ, Senior District Judge:

Chris Kohler appeals the district court’s rulings in favor 

of defendant Eddie Bauer following a bench trial on 

Kohler’s claims under the “Americans with Disabilities Act” 

(“ADA”). Eddie Bauer cross-appeals the district court’s

denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees. We vacate and 

remand in part and affirm in part.

I.

Kohler is disabled and uses a wheelchair. In June 2010, 

Kohler visited an Eddie Bauer Outlet store in Cabazon, 

California and purchased a shirt. Kohler alleges that while 

shopping he encountered a series of obstacles that prevented 

his full use and enjoyment of the store. The three obstacles 

that are relevant to this appeal were: (1) checkout counters 

that exceeded a permissible height, (2) a bench in the 

dressing room that exceeded the length required by the 

ADA, and (3) blocked aisles that prevented his free 

movement throughout the store.

 Case: 13-55808, 03/20/2015, ID: 9464862, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 4 of 12
KOHLER V. EDDIE BAUER 5

Six days after his visit, Kohler brought suit against Eddie 

Bauer for violations of the ADA, the California Disabled 

Persons Act (“CDPA”), the California Unruh Act, and the 

California Health and Safety Code. After denying Eddie 

Bauer’s motion for summary judgment, the district court 

held a two-day bench trial. The district court then issued an 

opinion holding that Kohler had not proven a violation of the 

ADA or California law stemming from the three barriers. 

Kohler v. Presidio Int’l, Inc., CV. 10-4680 PSG PJWX, 2013 

WL 1246801 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2013). Kohler appeals 

each ruling.

Following the district court’s ruling, Eddie Bauer filed a 

motion for attorneys’ fees under the CDPA, section 55. The 

district judge denied the motion on the grounds that the 

California law was preempted by the ADA’s fee shifting 

provision. See Hubbard v. SoBreck, LLC, 554 F.3d 742 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (“SoBreck”). Eddie Bauer asks this panel to 

reconsider that holding in light of Jankey v. Song Koo Lee, 

55 Cal. 4th 1038, 290 P.3d 187 (2012) (“Jankey”).

II.

“Following a bench trial, the judge’s findings of facts are 

reviewed for clear error.” Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the Arts, 

Escondido, 370 F.3d 837, 843 (9th Cir. 2004). Under this 

“significantly deferential” standard, “we will accept the 

lower court’s findings of fact unless we are left with the 

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

committed.” Id. (quoting N. Queen Inc. v. Kinnear, 

298 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir. 2002)). The lower court’s 

conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Love v. Associated 

Newspapers, Ltd., 611 F.3d 601, 614 (9th Cir. 2010). A 

district court’s decision to deny a motion for attorneys’ fees 

is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Skaff v. Meridien N. Am. 

Beverly Hills, LLC, 506 F.3d 832, 837 (9th Cir. 2007).

 Case: 13-55808, 03/20/2015, ID: 9464862, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 5 of 12
6 KOHLER V. EDDIE BAUER

III.

The ADA requires that counters be thirty-six inches 

high. 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. D § 7.2(1). Kohler alleged that 

the checkout counter at Eddie Bauer was higher than this 

requirement. The district judge concluded that Kohler had 

not offered sufficient evidence to prove a violation. On 

appeal, Kohler challenges the judge’s ruling in light of this 

court’s decision in Strong v. Valdez Fine Foods, 724 F.3d 

1042 (9th Cir. 2013).

Kohler attempted to admit photographic evidence 

exhibiting the height of the counter, but he failed to disclose 

the photographs thirty days prior to trial and they were 

excluded. This ruling is not challenged on appeal. To prove 

a violation then, Kohler offered his own opinion at trial. He 

testified that he “believe[d]” the counter was thirty-nine 

inches high. Kohler, 2013 WL 1246801, at *2. He reached 

this conclusion by approximating that his lap is roughly 

twenty-seven inches high and that the counter was higher 

than a foot above his lap. Id. Kohler also testified that he 

was able to purchase a shirt from the store on his visit—the 

cashier took the shirt off his lap and he paid with cash. Id.

In its defense, Sarah Miluso, a store manager, testified to 

the policies of Eddie Bauer’s stores. She stated “that it is the 

Store’s policy to try and approach customers as they are 

heading towards the checkout stations and take the articles 

of clothing from their hands.” Id.

The district court found that Kohler had not met his 

burden. In so holding, the court noted that “courts generally 

require measurements to demonstrate ADA violations.” Id.

at *8. The court also cited the district court opinion in 

Strong, suggesting that even if the plaintiff had provided 

additional detail, “it would be insufficient to demonstrate the 

 Case: 13-55808, 03/20/2015, ID: 9464862, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 6 of 12
KOHLER V. EDDIE BAUER 7

existence of actionable barriers because Plaintiff does not 

assert he is an ADA expert or is otherwise qualified to opine 

whether certain conditions constitute barriers within the 

meaning of the Act.” Id. (quoting Strong v. Valdez Fine 

Food, 09-CV-01278 MMA, 2011 WL 455285, at *7–8 (S.D. 

Cal. 2011).

This district court opinion in Strong was reversed by this 

court. See Strong, 724 F.3d 1042. The opinion makes clear 

that an ADA plaintiff is not required to provide “specialized 

or technical knowledge” through an expert witness to prove 

a violation. Id. at 1046. The court also noted that “[i]t’s 

commonly understood that lay witnesses may estimate size, 

weight, distance, speed and time even when those qualities 

could be measured precisely” and that disabled persons, who 

“daily navigate[] the world in a wheelchair” were 

particularly qualified to opine on the accessibility of 

facilities they visit. Id. at 1046. Although Strong itself 

involved a motion for summary judgment, the opinion did 

not limit its holding to that posture. Id. at 1046–47 (“a jury 

is perfectly capable of understanding . . . [listing ADA 

violations]”).

We vacate and remand with instructions for the district 

court to reconsider in light of Strong. We do not opine on 

the sufficiency of Kohler’s testimony—it is the trial judge 

who must weigh the credibility and weight of the evidence 

as presented. We only vacate given his reliance on a 

decision that has been overturned.1

 1 At oral argument, counsel for Eddie Bauer argued that the counters 

contained a “cut out” that made them compliant with the ADA. In a 28(j) 

 

 Case: 13-55808, 03/20/2015, ID: 9464862, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 7 of 12
8 KOHLER V. EDDIE BAUER

IV.

Title 24 of the California Regulatory Code does not 

provide a precise height for checkout counters, only that they 

be “accessible.” Cal. Reg. Code tit. 24, § 1110B.1.2. The 

district court interpreted this to require either compliance 

with the ADA’s thirty-six inch height requirement or that the 

store provides “clipboards consistently available to 

customers with disabilities to ensure accessibility.” Kohler, 

2013 WL 1246801, at *10 (citing Lieber v. Macy’s W., Inc., 

80 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1075 (N.D. Cal. 1999). An Eddie 

Bauer store manager testified that it was the store’s policy to 

have clipboards available to customers. Id. at *3. As a 

result, the district court found the store in compliance with 

Title 24.

We do not agree. A technical assistance manual 

promulgated by the Department of Justice to interpret the 

ADA Accessibility Guidelines (“ADAAG”) states that the 

use of a clipboard in lieu of lowered counters is permitted 

only as a temporary measure, “until more permanent 

changes can be made.” U.S. Dep't of Justice, ADA Update: 

a Primer for Small Business.

We have repeatedly held that manuals promulgated by 

the Department of Justice to interpret the ADAAG, are 

“entitled to substantial deference” and “will be disregarded 

only if plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” 

Miller v. Cal. Speedway Corp., 536 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th 

Cir. 2008) (internal quotation omitted). Furthermore, 

letter to the court, Eddie Bauer argues that the counter had a shelf 

attached to its side measuring thirty-four inches in height. Neither 

argument was adjudicated in the district court’s opinion or mentioned in 

the briefs before this court. Thus, they are waived on this appeal. See

Cruz v. Int’l Collection Corp., 673 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir. 2012).

 

 Case: 13-55808, 03/20/2015, ID: 9464862, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 8 of 12
KOHLER V. EDDIE BAUER 9

section 4450 of the California Government Code, which 

implements Title 24, explicitly states:

In no case shall the State Architect’s 

regulations and building standards prescribe 

a lesser standard of accessibility or usability 

than provided by the Accessibility Guidelines 

prepared by the federal Access Board as 

adopted by the United States Department of 

Justice to implement the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-

336).

Cal. Gov’t Code § 4450. Accordingly, we must hold 

accommodations to a greater or equal standard than the 

ADAAG requires.2

 Of course, if on remand the district court 

finds that Eddie Bauer’s counter was thirty-six inches high 

(or lower), than the counter would be accessible under Title 

24 and a consideration of the clipboards as an “equivalent 

facilitation” would not be necessary.

V.

Kohler also challenges the district court’s ruling that the 

bench in Eddie Bauer’s accessible dressing room, which is 

sixty inches long, does not violate the ADA. The district 

court held that although the 1991 ADAAG provide that a 

dressing room bench “shall be” forty-eight inches, the sixty 

inch bench qualified as an “equivalent facilitation” because 

Kohler was able to make a parallel transfer onto it. This 

court affirms that holding and relies upon the reasoning 

 2 This holding follows the reasoning of another district court in this 

Circuit. See Johnson v. Wayside Prop., Inc., __ F. Supp. 2d__, 2014 WL 

4276164, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2014).

 

 Case: 13-55808, 03/20/2015, ID: 9464862, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 9 of 12
10 KOHLER V. EDDIE BAUER

provided in a related case from this sitting that addresses the 

same issue. See Kohler v. Flava Enters., Inc., __ F.3d __, 

2015 WL 968232 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2015).

VI.

Kohler appeals the district court’s ruling that his claim 

of blocked aisles did not constitute an ADA violation. 

Kohler argues that the district court violated Strong by 

refusing to consider Kohler’s testimony and that the store 

“cannot rely upon the hoped-for existence of a kindly store 

clerk” to excuse ADA violations.

The district judge did consider Kohler’s testimony. The 

district court found that Kohler testified that “there was too 

much clothing on the floor” during his June 16, 2010 visit to 

the store which made it difficult for him to maneuver. 

Kohler, 2013 WL 1246801, at *4, 13. The district court also 

found that on a subsequent visit to the store, Kohler was able 

to maneuver. Id. The court determined that this “vague” 

testimony, together with the store manager’s testimony that 

the store has a policy of maintaining forty-eight inch aisles 

and clearing any merchandise from the floor, was not 

sufficient to show a “significant loss of selling or serving 

space” as required by the ADA. Id. at *13. Given that the 

court did not completely exclude Kohler’s testimony, its 

determination did not run afoul of Strong. For this reason, 

we affirm.3

 3 This ruling is in accordance with this court’s recent decision in 

Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., __ F.3d__ , 2015 WL 925586 

(9th Cir. Mar. 5, 2015). In Chapman, this court affirmed a district court’s 

finding that Pier 1’s aisles violated the ADA. The plaintiff presented 

 

 Case: 13-55808, 03/20/2015, ID: 9464862, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 10 of 12
KOHLER V. EDDIE BAUER 11

VII.

Eddie Bauer cross-appeals the district court’s denial of 

its motion for attorneys’ fees under CDPA section 55. The 

district court relied upon this court’s 2009 opinion in 

SoBreck, which held that the section 55’s provision 

providing for mandatory fees for both parties was preempted 

by the ADA’s provision providing for fees for prevailing 

defendants only in rare circumstances. See SoBreck, 554 

F.3d at 744–45. Eddie Bauer asks us to reconsider and 

overrule that holding in light of Jankey, which held to the 

contrary. We decline to do so.

First, the principles of stare decisis caution against such 

a departure. We will not overrule the decision of a prior 

panel of our court absent an en banc proceeding, or a 

demonstrable change in the underlying law. See In re Watts, 

298 F.3d 1077, 1083–84 (9th Cir. 2002) (O’Scannlain, J., 

concurring).

Second, Eddie Bauer’s argument that SoBreck is no 

longer binding given a change in the California statute is not 

persuasive. Eddie Bauer highlights the 2009 amendments to 

the CDPA, which require plaintiffs seeking monetary 

damages to prove that he or she “experience difficulty, 

discomfort, or embarrassment because of the violation.” 

Cal. Civ. Code § 55.56(c). What it fails to note, however, is 

that this amendment explicitly applies only to “grounds for 

awards for statutory damages” and references distinct 

evidence that on eleven separate visits to the store, he encountered 

several obstructed and blocked aisles. He also submitted photographs 

and an expert report to this effect. Here, Kohler only offered vague 

testimony that on one visit to the store there was merchandise in the 

aisles and he did not provide an expert report or photographs indicating 

that the aisles were blocked.

 

 Case: 13-55808, 03/20/2015, ID: 9464862, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 11 of 12
12 KOHLER V. EDDIE BAUER

portions of the CDPA (sections 52 and 54.3) that provide 

causes of action for monetary damages. See Cal. Civ. Code 

§ 55.56. Section 55, in contrast, is “part of the Disabled 

Person Act, but . . . an independent basis for relief” that only 

provides for injunctive relief. Jankey, 290 P.3d at 191. It 

was therefore not affected by the 2009 amendments to the 

CDPA. The conflict identified by this court in SoBreck still 

exists. As a result, we affirm the district court’s finding that 

section 55’s provision for mandatory attorneys’ fees is 

preempted by the ADA, and that attorneys’ fees are therefore 

unavailable in this case.4

VIII.

We vacate and remand the district court’s ruling with 

respect to the counters under the ADA, and reverse and 

remand the ruling under Title 24. We affirm the district 

court’s rulings on the bench, the blocked aisles, and the 

attorneys’ fees.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND 

REMANDED IN PART.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

 4 Notably, the court in Jankey did not rely upon the 2009 amendments 

to the CDPA in holding that section 55 was not preempted by the ADA. 

The court instead drew on the ADA’s construction clause and the fact 

that plaintiffs were not required to bring claims under both the ADA and 

section 55. See Jankey, 290 P.3d at 193–95. This court declines to adopt 

these arguments.

 

 Case: 13-55808, 03/20/2015, ID: 9464862, DktEntry: 45-1, Page 12 of 12