N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ALM A C L AR ISA HER

NANDEZ, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. POLANC O ENTER

PR ISES, INC ., De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-17345 D.C . No. 4:11-c v-02247-YGR
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 Yvonne Gonz a le z R oge rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 11, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C LIFTON a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s a nd SM ITH, ** C h ie f Distric t Judge
. Pla intiff Alm a

C la risa He rnande z a

ppe a ls from the distric t

c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of De fe nda

nt Pola nc o Ente rprise s. The distric t c ourt a ppe ars to have found tha

t He rna n d e z ’ s c la im

for dam a ge s unde r C a l ifornia ’ s Unruh C ivil



# FIL ED D EC 18 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. ** The Honora

ble W illia m E. Sm ith, C hie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of R hode Isla nd, sitting by

de signa tion.R ights Ac t, c odifie d at se c tion 51 e t se q . of the C a lifornia C ivil C ode , wa s ne c e ssa rily m oote d whe n

he r c orre sponding c l a im

unde r Title III of the Am e ric ans with Disa bilitie s Ac t, c odifie d at 42 U.S.C . § 12181 e t se q ., wa s m oote d
. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e re ve rse and re m and. He rnande z , a

n individual with a

disa bility who use s a

whe e lc ha i r, visite d a ga s sta tion owne d by

Pola n c o. She wa s una

b le to e nte r the ga s sta

tion’ s c onve nie nc e store be c a

use the la nding a t the e ntra n c e wa s too na

rrow. B e fore the distric t c o urt rule d on the pa rtie s’ c ross-m otions for sum m ary judgm e nt, Pola

nc o re m ove d m any

of the ba rrie rs He rnan de z ha d ide ntifie d, inc luding e xpa nding the siz e of the la

nding. It a

ppe ars tha

t the distric t c ourt the n dism isse d a ll of He rnande z ’ s fe de ra l a

nd sta te -law c la im s re late d to the re m e diate d ba rrie rs. 1 R e ga rding the siz e of the e ntra nc e la nding, thedistric t c ourt e rre d whe n it he ld tha t He rna nde z ’ s c la i m

for dam a ge s unde r the Unruh Ac t wa s ne c e s sa rily
m oote d whe n the re l ate d ADA c la im wa s m o ote d. Unde r Title III of the ADA, a pla i ntiff m ay

only se e k injunc tive re lie f for the re m ova l of a n e x isting a c c e ssa

bility ba rrie r. Se e 42 U.S.C . § 12188. In c ontra st, the Unruh Ac t pe rm its da m a ge s ba se d
on a pla i ntiff’ s pe rsona l e n c ounte r with a n a c c e ssibility

ba rrie r on a pa st oc c a sion;

1 The distric t c ourt he ld tha t Pola nc o ha d re m ove d a num

be r of ba rrie rs, but the o nly ba rrie r a t issueon a

ppe a l is thesiz e of the e ntra nc e la nding. 2a s suc h, subse q ue n t re m ova l of the ba

rrie r is irre le va

nt. Se e C a l. C iv. C ode § 55.56(a )-(c ). He rnande z se e ks sta

tutory dam a ge s unde r the Unruh Ac t ba se d on a n unde rly ing ADA viola

tion. Se e C a l. C i v. C ode § 51(f). Unde r C a lifornia la w, she
m ust prove

— in a ddition to the

ADA viola

tion— that she “ p e rsona lly

e nc ounte re d the v iola t ion [of a c onstruc tion-re late d a c c e s sibility sta nda rd] on a pa rtic ula r oc c a sion” and tha

t it c a use d he r “ diffic ulty , disc om fort, or e m ba rra ssm e nt,” thus de ny ing he r full a

n d e q ua l a c c e ss to a

pla c e of public a c c om

m odation. C a l. C iv. C ode § 55.56(a )-(c ). W e RE V E RSE and RE M AND for the distric t c ourt to de te rm i ne , in the first insta nc e , whe the r He rnande z is e ntitle d to sta tutory dam a ge s unde r the Unruh Ac t with re spe c t to thesiz e of the e ntra nc e la nding. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D
.

3