N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ELISSA J. EAR

LL, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. EB AY, INC ., De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-15134 D.C . No. 5:11-c v-00262-EJD M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Edwa rd J. Da vila , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

13, 2015 San Franc isc o C a lifornia B e fore : M c KEOW

N, M UR GUIA, a

nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s . Earll a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of he r Am e ric ans with Disa bilitie s Ac t (ADA) c la im , 42 U.S.C . §§ 12181–12189, he r C a lifornia Disa

ble d Pe rsons Ac t c la im , C a l. C i v . C o de §§ 54, 54.1(a), and he r Unruh C i vil Rights Ac t c la im , C a l. 

# FIL E D APR 01 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.C iv. C ode §§ 51–52. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm the dism issa l of a ll thre e c l a im s. Unde r Title III of the ADA, “ [n] o individual sha l l be disc rim inate d a ga inst on the ba sis of disa

bility in the full a

nd e qua l e njoy

m e nt of the goods, se rvic e s, fa c i litie s, privile ge s, a dva nta ge s, or a c c om

m o dations of a

ny pla c e of public a c c om m odation.” 42 U.S.C . § 12182(a). W e hav e pre v iously inte rpre te d the te rm

“ pla c e of public a c c om

m odation” to re quire “ som e c onne c tion be twe e n the good or se rvic e c o m

pla ine d of a

nd a n a c tua l phy sic a l pla c e .” W e y e r v . Tw e ntie th C

e ntury Fox Film C orp. , 198 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th C i r. 2000). B e c a use e B ay ’ s se rvic e s a

re not c onne c te d to a

ny “ a c t ua l, phy sic a l pla c e [] ,” e B a y is not subje c t to the ADA. Se e id. The re fore , in light of W e y e r , Ea rll’ s ADA c l a im

fa ils a s a m atte r of la

w. Se e id. The Disa

ble d Pe rsons Ac t gua

rante e s tha

t “ [i] ndividua ls with disa

bilitie s sha l l be e ntitle d to full a

nd e qua l a c c e ss, a s othe r m e m be rs of the ge ne ra l public , to a c c om m odations, a dva

nta ge s, fa c ilitie s, . . . pla c e s of public a c c om m o dation, am use m e nt, or re sort, a

nd othe r pla c e s to whic h the ge ne ra l public is invite d, subje c t only

to the c onditions a

nd limita tions e sta blishe d by

la w, or sta te or fe de ra l re gula tion, a n d a pplic a ble a like to a ll pe rsons.” C a l. C iv. C ode § 54.1(a )(1). C a lifornia c ourts ha ve c onstrue d se c tion 54.1 a s a m e ans of e nforc ing sepa

rate , 2a

pplic a ble a c c e ssibility

sta nda rds, inc luding ADA sta

nda rds. Se e C

oronado v
. C obble stone Vill. C

mty . Re ntals , 77 C a l. R

p tr. 3d 883, 893–94 (C t. App. 2008) (c iting Marsh v . Edw a rds , 134 C a l. R ptr. 844, 892 (C t. App. 1976)), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by

Munson v . De l Tac o, Inc . , 208 P.3d 623, 678 (C a l. 2009). 1 B e c a use the ADA doe s not a

pply to the e B ay se rvic e s at issuehe re , Ea rll fa ile d to a lle ge viola

tion of a ny se pa ra te , a pplic a ble a c c e ssibility

sta n da rd. On this ba sis, Earll’ s Disa

ble d Pe rsons Ac t c l a im fa ils a s a m atte r of la

w. The Unruh C ivil Rights Ac t provide s tha t “ [a ] l l pe rsons . . . a

re fre e and e qua l, a nd . . . a re e ntitle d to thefull a

nd e qua l a c c o m

m o dations, a d

va nta ge s, fa c i litie s, privile ge s, or se rvic e s in a ll busine ss e sta blishm e nts of e ve ry

kind whatsoe v e r.” C a l. C iv. C ode § 51(b). “ [T] o e s ta blish a viola tion of theUnruh Ac t inde pe nde nt of a

c la im unde r the [ADA] , [a

pla intiff] m

ust ‘ ple a d a

n d prove inte ntiona l disc rim ination.’ ” Gre ate r L.A. Age nc y on De afne

ss, Inc . v . C

ableN e w s N e tw ork , Inc . , 742 F.3d 414, 425 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting M unson , 208 P.3d a

t 627). e B ay ’ s a

ura l ide ntific at ion sy s te m a p plie s to a ll e B ay

use rs, whe the r he aring-im

pa ire d or not. Its fai lure to providea de a f-a c c e ssible a l te rnat ive to its

1 Although the

Disa ble d Pe rsons Ac t c an be a sse rte d a s a fre e sta nding c la im if ba se d on a

n a lle ge dly

disc rim inatory

polic y , se e Hank

ins v . El Torito Re

sts., Inc . , 74 C a l. R ptr. 2d 684, 691–93 (Ct. App. 1998), Ea rll fa i le d to a sse rt this a

rgum e nt in he r ope ning brie f and the re fore wa ive d it. Se e Dre am Game s of Ariz., Inc . v . PC Onsite , 561 F.3d 983, 994–95 (9th C ir. 2009). 3a

ura l ide n tific ation sy ste m doe s not a

m ount to willful, affirm ative m isc onduc t suffic i e nt to c onstitute inte ntiona l disc rim ination unde r the Unruh Ac t. Se e K oe bk e v . Be rnardo He ights C

ountry C lub , 115 P.3d 1212, 1228 (C a l. 2005). B e c a use Earll ha s not a lle ge d

inte ntiona l disc rim ination, Ea rll’ s Unruh Ac t c la i m

fa ils a s a m atte r of la

w. AFFIRM E D .

4