C ORRECTED 2/10/14

F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

G R E A T E R L O S A

N G E L E S A G E

N C Y O N D E A F N E S S , I

N C .; D A N I E L J A C O B ; E D W A R D K E L L Y ; J E N N I F E R O L S O N , on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees
,

v

.

C A B L E N E W S N E T W

O R K , I N C

. , incorrectly

sued as Time W arner I nc., Defendant-Appellant

. N o. 12-15807

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-03458- L B

ORDER CERTI F YI

NG QUESTI ON TO CAL I F ORNI A SUPREME COURT

F iled F ebruary

5, 2014

B efore: J . Clifford W allace, M. Marg aret McKeown, and Sandra S. I kuta, Circuit J udg es.G R E A T E R L .A. A G E

N C Y O N D E A F N E S S V

. CNN 2

COUNSEL

Thomas R. B urke (arg

ued), Rochelle L

. W ilco x , J anet L

. Grumer, J eff Glasser, Davis Wrig ht Tremaine, San F rancisco, California; Ronald L ondon, Davis W rig h t T r emaine, W a shing ton, D.C., for Defendant-Appellant.

L aurence W

. Paradis (arg ued), Mary -L ee K. Smit h
, a nd Michael Nunez
, Di s ability Rig h ts Advocates, B erkeley
, California; L inda M. Dardarian and J as o n H

. Tarricone, Goldstein, Demchak, B aller, B org e n & Dardarian, Oakland, California; Peter B lanck, Sy racuse, New York, for PlaintiffsAppellees.

Karl Olson, Ram, Olson
, Cereg h ino & Kopcz y nski, San F rancisco, California, for Amici Cu r i ae L os Ang eles Times Communications L L C, McClatchy Newspapers, I nc., Hearst Corporation, California Newspaper Pub lishers Association, and California B roadcasters Association.

J ohn F

. W aldo, Portland, Oreg on, for A mici Curiae W a shing ton State Communicati o n A ccess Project, O reg on Communication Access Project, A ssociation o f L ate Deafened Adults (AL DA), Aloha State (Hawaii) Association

o f the Deaf, Ariz ona Association o f the Deaf, California Asso c iation of the Deaf, Nevada Association of the Deaf, I daho Association of the Deaf, and Oreg o n Association o f the Deaf.

Howard A. Rosenblum and Andr e w S. Phillips, National Association of the Deaf, Si l v e r Spring
, Mary land; B lake E. Reid and Ang ela J

. Campbell, I nstitute for Public Representation, Georgetown L aw, W a shing ton, D.C., for Amici Curiae T elecommunications f or the Deaf and Hard o fG R E A T E R L .A. A G E

N C Y O N D E A F N E S S V

. CNN 3

Hearing
, I nc., National Association of th e D e a f
, a nd the Hearing L oss Association of America.

ORDER

W e respectfully ask the California Supreme Court to

answer the certified question set forth below. The a nswer to this question will determine the outcome of t h i s appeal, a nd there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the California Supreme Court. Althoug h we are mindful that our certification request adds to t h e burg eoning caseload of the California Supreme C o u rt, this case raises an important question of California law and has b road implications for di s a b i l ity rig h ts. “Comity a nd federalism counsel that the California Supreme Court, rather than t h i s court, should answer” the certified question. Munson v. Del T a c o , Inc.
, 522 F .3d 997, 999 (9th Cir. 2008) (certify ing q uestions to California Supreme Court).

Q U E S T I O N C E R T I F I E D

Pursuant to Rule 8.548 of the California Rules of Court,

we r espectfully request that the Supreme Court of California answer the following

question:

The California Disabled Persons A ct, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54 et seq. (“DPA”) provides that “[ i ] n dividuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access, a s other

me m bers o f the g eneral public, to accommodations, advantag es, facilities

. . . a nd privileg es of

. . . places o f public accommodation

. . . an d o t her p laces to which the
g eneral public is invited.” Id. § 54.1(a)(1). Does the DPA’sG R E A T E R L .A. A G E

N C Y O N D E A F N E S S V

. CNN 4

reference to “places o f public accommodation” include web sites, which are non-phy sical places?

I n response to this question, the California Supreme Court

s h a ll not be b o und by the manner in which the questio n h a s been phrased by this court. W e ag ree to follow the a n s wer provided by

the California Supreme Court.

B A C K G R O U N D

Defendant Cable News Network, I nc. (“CNN”) o perates CNN.com, a publicly accessible web site containing online

news videos. I n December 2010, the Greater L o s Ang eles Ag ency on Deafnes s , I nc. (“GL AD”) requested that Time W a r ner I nc. ( “ Time W arner”) 1 caption all of the v ideos on its

news web sites so that hearing -impaired visitors co u l d have full access to the online videos. I n Fe bruary 2011, CNN responded that it offered a number of tex t-based services a nd

ex p lained that CNN would be “ready to p rovide whatever web access is ultimately required” by a then-pending federal rulemaking action reg arding the captioning of online videos.

GL AD and CNN did n ot reach an ag reement over captioning
, and in J une 201 1
, GL AD filed suit in California
state court, naming Time W arner 2 as the defendant. GL AD’s Complaint alleg es violations o f t he California Unruh Civil

1 CNN i s a w

h o l l y o w n e d s u

b sid iary o f T u rn er B ro ad castin g Sy stem , In c., w h ich
, acco rd in g to CNN’ s Co rp o rate Dis clo su re Statem en t, “ is

u ltim ately

w h o l ly o w n ed b y T im e W arn er In c.”

2 A lt h o u g h G LA D in itially n am ed T im e Warn er as d ef en d an t in th e Co m p lain t , th e parties su

b seq u en tly stip u lated th at CNN w o u ld b e

su b stitu t ed f or T im e W arn er.G R E A T E R L .A. A G E

N C Y O N D E A F N E S S V

. CNN 5

Rig hts Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51 et seq. (“Unruh Act”), and the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54 et

s e q

. (“DPA”), and seeks damag es, d eclaratory relief, a n d a preliminary and permanent injunction “requiring [ C N N] to take steps ne c e s sary to ensure that the b e nefits a nd advanta ge s offered by CNN.com are fully and equally enjoy able to persons who a r e d eaf or have hearing loss in California.” CNN removed the action to federal co u rt, a nd the parties c onsented to h ave the matter heard before a mag istrate judg e

. CNN fil e d a motion to strike under California’s anti-SL APP statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16, w hich provides for the “early dismissal o f unmeritorious claims filed to interfere with the valid ex ercise of the co n s t i t utional rig hts of freedom of speech a nd petition,” Club M

embers for a n H

onest Election v. Sierra Club
, 45 Cal. 4th 309, 315 (2008).

The statute establishes a two-step analy sis f o r d e t e r m ining whether a cause of action must be stric k e n under Section 425.16. Navellier v

. Sletten
, 29 Cal. 4 t h 82, 88 (2002). Under the f

irst step, the defendant i s re q uired to make “a threshold showing that the challeng ed cause of action” arises from acts “taken in furthe ra n c e o f the [ d efendant] ’ s r ig ht o f petition or free speech

. . . in connection with a public issue.” Equilon Enters. v. Consumer Cause, Inc. , 29 Cal. 4th 53, 67 (2002) (alteration in orig inal) (internal quo tation marks omitted). At the second step, the burden shifts to the p laintiff
to establish, w ith competent evidence, “a probability that [he] will p revail on the claim[ s] .” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1). Apply ing this analy sis, the mag istrate judg e found that CNN failed to satisfy the threshold showing at the first step of the anti-SL A P P a n a ly sis a nd therefore denied C N N ’ s anti-SL APP motion w ithout r eaching the second merits-based step. CNN timely appealed.G R E A T E R L .A. A G E

N C Y O N D E A F N E S S V

. CNN 6

I n a n opinion p ublished concurrently with this order, we reversed the mag istrate judg e’s decision at the first step o f the anti-SL A PP inquir y , concluding that GL AD’s action arose from conduct in f

urtherance of CNN’s free speech rig hts. W e

ex e r cised our discretion t o consider the second step in the first instance. W

allace v. McCubbin
, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1169, 119 5 (2011) (“[ W] e have discretion to decide the [ second step anti-SL APP] issue o urselves, since it is subject to independent review.”). W e c o ncluded that GL A D was unable
to prove a probability of prevai l i ng on its Unruh Act c laims

as a matter o f California l a w b ecause GL AD could not establish that CNN eng ag ed in i n t entional discrimination. After rejecting CNN’s constituti o n a l objections to GL AD’s DPA claims, we deferred decision on the remaining issue of whether GL A D can prove a probabili t y o f prevailing on its DPA claims pending resolution of the certified question.

R E A S O N S F O R C E R T I F I C A T I O N

The certified q

uestion p resents an issue of sign i f i cant precedential and public p o licy importance. Numerous recent

cases have discussed the DPA’s applicability to virtual spaces like web sites, but there is n o conclusive California authority

on point. Since the I ntern e t i s increasing ly ubiquitous in daily life, a

nd this question is likely to recur, w e respectfully request that the California Supreme Court resolve the issue. W e provide the following summary of the parties’ arg uments

an d t h e relevant case law reg a rding the applicability o f the DPA to web sites. W e ackno w ledg e that reasonable
arg uments ex ist on both sides o f the issue and do not advocate for a particular resolution to the certified question.

I n its brief to our court, CNN arg ues that “[ n] o published appellate decision has interpreted the [ DPA] to apply to aG R E A T E R L .A. A G E

N C Y O N D E A F N E S S V

. CNN 7

w e b s i t e that is not related to a brick a nd mortar place o f public accom

m o d a t i o n.” To support this position, CNN relies

on federal district court cases i n C a lifornia analy z ing DPA claims deriving from alleg ed Americans with Disabilities A ct (“ADA”) violations. See Cullen v. Netflix, Inc.
, 880 F

. Supp. 2d 1017, 1024 (N.D. Ca l

. 2 0 12) (stating that “[ t] he N etflix website is not a n a c tual phy sical place, and therefore, under Ninth Circuit law, is not a place o f public a ccommodation” under the A DA (internal q uotation marks o mitted)); Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Target Corp.
, 452 F

. Supp. 2d 9 46, 952, 958 ( N.D. Cal. 2006) (“ Target I ”) (stating
, as t o the ADA, that t h e “ N inth Circuit h as declined to join those c ircuits which have sug g e sted that a ‘ place of public accommodation’
may have a more ex pansive meaning ”). I n Netflix, the court ruled that, because the plaintiff could not show a violation o f the ADA, he could not bring derivative claims for v i o l a t i o n of the D PA based on Netflix ’s failure to provide closed captioning for hearing -impaired individuals on its streaming library

. Netflix , 880 F . Supp. 2d at 1024.

CNN further contends that California courts have a pplied the D PA only where there was a denial of p h y s i cal access. See Turner v. Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls.
, 16 7 Cal. App. 4th 1401, 1412–13 (2008) (holding that there was no violation o f the DPA where the r e was no denial of phy sical access to testing facility

); Madden v. Del Taco, Inc.
, 150 Cal. App. 4th 294, 301 (2007) (holding that § 54 “has alway s d r awn

me a ning from a g rowing body of leg islation intended to reduce or eliminate the p hy sical impediments to participation of phy sically handicapped pe r s o n s in community life” (alterations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

GL AD c ounters that the c ases limiting the scope of DPA claims invol v e d c laims that were d erivative of ADAG R E A T E R L .A. A G E

N C Y O N D E A F N E S S V

. CNN 8

violations. GL AD posits that because its DPA claims aris e independently of the ADA, these claims a re not foreclosed b y the a uthority cited b y CNN. More specifically
, in Netflix
, the

co u r t s tated that the “[ plaintiff] may be able to pursue his discrimination claims if t hey a re asserted as independent claims sep a r ate from an ADA violation because both the Unruh Act and the D PA apply to websites.” 880 F

. Supp. 2d
at 1 024. GL AD a l s o r e l i es u pon Nat’l Fed’n of the B lind v

. T a rget Corp.
, 582 F

. Supp. 2d 1 185 (N.D. Cal. 2 0 0 7 ) (“ Target I

I” )
, where the court held for class c ertification
purposes that “ t h e DPA r each[ e s] Targ et.com as a kind o f busines s establishment and an accommodation, advantag e , facility
, a nd pri v i l eg e of a place of public a ccommodation.” Id. at 1196.

GL AD additionally states t h a t , a lthoug h the cases upon which CNN relies address the DPA’s application to phy sical places, these cases did not specifically address whether the DPA a pplies to non-phy sical places. GL A D m a intains that the DPA should b e interpreted broadly
, c it i n g California authority stating that the DPA “may also be c o n s t rued a s requiring equal phy sical access to a nontang ible location such

as an internet site.” Turner
, 167 Cal. App. 4th at 1412. I n addition, GL AD arg ues that the addition of “te l e p h o ne facilities” to the list of places covered by the DPA favors a holding that the DPA applies to web sites, because “telephone facilities” covers not just phy sical locations, b u t a lso “tariff items and other equipment and services.” Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1(a)(1), (2).

F inally
, GL A D points to the DPA’s statement that “[ i] ndiv i d u a l s with disabilities shall be entitled to full a nd equal access, as other me m b e rs of the g eneral p ublic, to accommodations, advantag es, facilities

. . . and privile gesG R E A T E R L .A. A G E

N C Y O N D E A F N E S S V

. CNN 9

of

. . . places of p ublic accommodation

. . . a n d other places
to which the g eneral public is inv i t e d

. ” Id. § 54.1(a)(1). GL AD buttresses its p olicy arg ument by stating that “California courts h ave applied a canon of broad c onstruction
to civil r ig h ts statutes g enerally
, and to § 51 [ the U nruh Act] and § 54.1 [ the DPA] in particular.” Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc.
, 866 F

. Supp. 433, 438 (N.D. Cal. 1994). This canon of construction, GL AD a r g ues, r e inforces the contention that “CNN.com is s u re l y a ‘place’ to which the public is ‘invited,’ particularly g ive n the increasing importance of the I nternet. ” CNN’s reply brief rejects such

a broad construction of the statute, focusing on the fact that the statutory tex t o f the DPA “does not include the words ‘internet’ or ‘ services’ or any other words in d icating that it applies to any

thing other than phy sical places.”

The foreg oing precedent leaves us unable to predict h ow the California Supreme Court w ould r e s o lve the c ertified question. B ecause the question would have sig nificant ramifications for California disability law and would determine the outcome of this appeal, w e respectfully seek
g uidance from the California Supreme Court.

A D M I N I S T R

A T I V E I N F O R

M A T I O N

The title of this matter is GREATER L OS ANGEL ES AGENCY ON DEAF NESS, I N C.; DANI EL J ACOB ; EDW ARD KEL L Y; J ENNI F ER OL SON, on behal f o f themselve s and all others similarly situated, v. CAB L E NEW S NETW ORK, I

NC., incorrectly sued as Time W arner I nc. The docket nu m b e r i s 12-15807. I f our r e quest for decision is g r anted, we desig n ate CNN as the petitioner. Cal. R. Ct. 8.548(b)(1).G R E A T E R L .A. A G E

N C Y O N D E A F N E S S V

. CNN 10

The names and addresses of counsel for de f e n d a n tappellant CNN are:

Thomas R. B urke J effrey D. Glasser Rochelle L . W ilcox J anet L . Grumer Davis W r ig ht Tremaine L L P 505 Montg omery

Street, Suite 800 San F rancisco, CA 94111

Ronald L ondon Davis W r ig ht Temaine L L P 1919 Pennsy lvania Avenue, NW , Suite 800 W a shing ton, DC 20006

The nam e s and a ddresses of counsel f or plaintiffsappellees GL A D, Daniel J a c ob, Edward Kelly
, and J ennifer Olson are:

L aurence W . Paradis Michael S. Nunez Mary -L ee K. Smith Disability Rig hts Advocates 2001 Center Street, F ourth F loor B e rkeley , CA 94704

Peter B lanck L aw Offices of Peter B lanck Crouse-Hinds Hall, Suite 300 900 S. Crouse Ave. Sy racuse, NY 13244G R E A T E R L .A. A G E

N C Y O N D E A F N E S S V

. CNN 11

L inda M. Dardarian J ason H. Tarricone Goldstein, B org en, Dardarian &Ho 300 L akeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 8.548(d), the Clerk of this C ourt shall f

orward an orig inal and 10 copies of this order, under official seal, to the Ca lifornia Supreme Court, along with a certifi c ate of service on the parties, and copies

o f a l l briefs, ex cerpts of record, requests for judicial n o tice
, and post-arg u ment letters that have been filed with this court.

This cas e i s withdrawn from submission until f urther order of this court, and all further p r o c e e d ing s in this court

are stay ed p ending final action by t h e California Supreme Court. T he parties shall notify the Clerk of this Court within

seven day s after the California Supr e m e Court accepts o r rejects certification, and ag ain withi n s even day s if the California Supreme Court renders an opinion. T h e panel retains jurisdiction over further proceeding s.

IT IS SO ORDERED.