NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LILLIBETH NAVARRO, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; MS. WHEELCHAIR CALIFORNIA PAGEANT, INC., an organization, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, INC., a business entity, Defendant - Appellee. No. 12-55426 D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02620-JFW-CW
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 8, 2013 Pasadena, California Before: FISHER and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON, District Judge. ** 

# FILED
NOV 26 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.Plaintiffs Ms. Wheelchair California Pageant, Inc. and Lillibeth Navarro appeal the district court’s dismissal for l ack of jurisdiction and the denial of their motion to amend the scheduling order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand. 1. The district court erred by sua sponte dismissing the plaintiffs’ Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) clai ms for lack of Article III standing. See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. , 631 F.3d 939, 946 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). The memoranda on which the di strict court relied do not conclusively establish that Starline no longer has any discriminatory policies affecting persons with mobility disabilities. The plaintiffs ’ declarations support another inference – that Starline discriminated against individua ls with disabilities in the past and that it has continued to do so. The plaintiffs further declared that they were deterred from attempting to use Starline’s services but planned to do so when these services were made fully accessible. Viewing the f acts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, as we are required to do, see Cent. Delta Water Agency v. United States , 306 F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2002), the plaintiffs have standing to bring suit under the ADA. As such, they have standing to challenge all of the barriers and policies that are allegedly denying them the full and equal enjoyment of Starline’s services, including company policies or practices or the features of its vehicles that make
2them inaccessible to persons who are wh eelchair-bound, and failure to adequately train employees regarding their legal oblig ations under relevant federal and state statutes. See Chapman , 631 F.3d at 946. 2. The district court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to modify the scheduling order and file an am ended complaint. The plaintiffs showed “good cause” because they diligently sought discovery in support of their physical barrier claims, including an inspection of Starline’s vehicle fleet, and sought to modify the scheduling order shortly afte r their inspection was completed and the need for amendment became apparent. See Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co. , 654 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2011). The record does not support the district court’s conclusion that Starline would be unfairly prejudiced by amendment. The plaintiffs’ original complaint, numerous discovery requests and the class certification order gave Starline ample notice that the plaintiffs sought to remedy physical barriers to access in its vehicles. We vacate the district court’s dismi ssal and remand with instructions to grant the plaintiffs leave to file the propos ed amended complaint. Each side shall bear its own costs of appeal. VACATED AND REMANDED
.

3