N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LYNDA B UTLER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. W INC O FOODS, LLC an d B R YAN M ILLER , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-55862 D.C . No. 5:12-c v-00980-PA-DTB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Pe rc y Ande rson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 8, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : NOONAN, W

ARD LAW , a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . Ly nda B utle r a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of he r c la im brought unde r the Am e ric a

ns with Disa

bilitie s Ac t (ADA), 42 U.S.C . § 12101 e t se q . B utle r c ha lle nge s W inC o Foods, LLC ’ s (W inC o) store -wide polic y prohibiting se rvic e an im a ls from

riding in its groc e ry

c a rts. Afte r the distric t c ourt de nie d



# F IL ED MAY26 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.B utle r’ s m o tion for sum m a ry judgm e nt on he r ADA c la im , and gra nte d in pa rt a nd de nie d in pa

rt W inC o’ s c ross-m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt on tha

t c la im , W inC o offe re d B utle r an individual e xc e ption to its polic y , whic h would pe rm it he r to pla c e he r se rvic e anim a l in the groc e ry c art while shopping a s long a s the an im a l wa s in a c arrie r. The distric t c o urt dismisse d B utle r’ s ADA c la im , a nd de c line d to e xe rc ise jurisdic tion ove r he r supple m e nta l sta te la w c la i m s, re a s oning tha

t be c a use W inC o offe re d

B utle r an e xc e ption to its se rvic e anim a l polic y , B utle r’ s ADA c la im is m oot. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we re ve rse the d istric t c o urt’ s dismissa l of B utle r’ s ADA c la im . 1. The distric t c ourt e rre d by c onc luding tha

t B utle r’ s ADA c la im

is m oot ba se d on the e xc e ption W i nC o offe re d he r to its se rvic e anim a l polic y . B utle r’ s ADA c l a im

fa lls within the “ volunta

ry c e ssation” e x c e ption to the m ootne ss doc trine . Se eFrie nds of the Earth, Inc . v . Laidlaw

Env tl. Se rv

s. (TOC ), Inc . , 528 U.S. 167, 174 (2000) (“

A de fe nda

nt’ s volunta

ry c e s sation of a lle ge d ly

unla w ful c onduc t ordina

rily doe s not suffic e to m oot a c a se .” ). W inC o only m a de its c onc e ssion to B ut le r following the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l in pa rt of W inC o’ s m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt, finding fa c tua l issue s in dispute a s to B utle r’ s ADA c la im . Se eid.

2W inC o m ust show tha

t it is “ a bsolute ly c le ar” tha

t it “ c ould not re a sona

bly be e xpe c t e d ” to re voke the e xc e ption or c ontinueto e nforc e the a lle ge dly im prope r polic y a ga inst B utle r. Se eid. at 190 (“ [A] de fe nda nt c la im ing tha

t its volunta

ry c om plia nc e m oots a

c a s e be ars the form ida

ble burde n of showing tha t it is a bsolute ly c le ar the a lle ge d l y

wrongful be havior c o uld not re a sona bly be e xpe c te d to re c ur.” ); Am. C

argo Transp., Inc . v . Unite d State s , 625 F.3d 1176, 1179 (9th C ir. 2010). W inC o ha s not m e t its burden. W i nC o proffe rs the de c la ration of its m ana ge r, Ste v e B e hn, who sta te s tha t a m e m o randum

is poste d in thebre akroom inform ing e m

ploy e e s of the e xc e ption; tha t e m ploy e e s a re be ing tra ine d to gra

nt B utle r the e xc e ption; a

nd tha t W inC o “ ha s no inte ntion of re voking thee xc e ption to the polic y . ” Howe ve r, W inC o’ s a lle ge dly im prope r se rvic e an im a l polic y re m a ins in plac e , a

n d W i nC o m a inta ins theposition tha t the polic y

ne e d not be c ha nge d. And, a lthough W inC o e m p loy e e s a re pre se ntly be ing tra ine d to gra nt B utle r an e xc e ption to the polic y , it is not “ a bsolute ly c le ar” tha

t suc h tra i ning c annot re a sona

b ly be e xpe c te d to c e a se . Se eFrie nds of the Earth, 528 U.S. a

t 190; Am. C argo Transp., Inc . , 625 F.3d a t 1179. The e xc e ption offe re d to B utle r is not suffic i e ntly

e ntre nc he d a

nd pe rm ane nt, suc h tha

t B utle r’ s ADA c la i m

is re nde re d m oot. Se e Be ll v . C

ity of Boise , 709 F.3d 890, 900 (9th C ir. 2013).

3B e c a

use the distric t c ourt e rre d in dismissing B utle r’ s ADA c l a im a s m oot, we re m and to thedistric t c ourt to re c onside r whe the r to e xe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r B utle r’ s sta te la w c l a im s. Se eLac e

y v . Maric opa C

nty . , 693 F.3d 896, 940 (9th C ir. 2012); s e ealso 28 U.S.C . § 1367(a), (c ). 2. W e la c k jurisdic tion to a ddre ss the distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of B utle r’ s m otion for sum

m a ry judgm e nt. Se eRodrigue z v . Loc k he e d Martin C

orp. , 627 F.3d 1259, 1264 (9th C ir. 2010); Burk ev . Erne st W . Hahn, Inc . , 592 F.2d 542, 546 (9th C ir. 1979) (“ The de nia l of a m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt is not a

n a ppe a la ble orde r . . . e ve n

whe re an a c tion is inc orre c tly

dism isse d by

the distric t c ourt for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion.” ). RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

4