N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT GILB ER T SALINAS, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. C B C RE STAUR

ANT C ORPOR

ATION, INC ., De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 16-55564

DC No. C V 14-1233 C JC 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 C orm a c J. C arne y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Nove m

be r 6, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM Aand B ER Z ON, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd PAYNE, Se nior Distric t Judge . *** 

# FIL ED JAN 02 2018 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2)(C ). *** The Honora

ble R obe rt E. Pa

yne , Se n ior Unite d

Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of Virginia , sitting by de s igna tion.De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt C B C R e sta

urant C orporation, Inc . , (“ C B C ” ) a ppe a ls from the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of its Fe d. R . C i v. P. 60(b) (“ R ule 60(b)” ) m otion for re lie f from

the judgm e nt. The unde rly ing judgm e nt wa s sum m ary judgm e nt in favor of Pla intiff-Appe lle e Gilbe rt Sa lina s (“ Sa lina s” ), who c onte nde d tha t C B C ’ s c he c k-out c ounte r viola

te d Am e ric ans with Disa

b ilitie s Ac t

(“ A DA” ) Ac c e ssibility Guide line s (“ ADAAG” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w for a

buse of disc re t ion, C

ase y v . Albe rtson’s Inc . , 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th C ir. 2004), a

nd we a ffirm . 1. W e re

je c t C B C ’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c o urt m a de e ithe r m ista ke s of fa c t or of la

w, wa rranting re l ie f from

the judgm e nt unde r R

ule 60(b)(1). The re le va nt dim e nsions a

nd c o nstruc tion of thec he c k-out c ounte r in C B C ’ s re sta urant we re c le arly

pre s e nte d in doz e ns of photogra phs in there c ord. The fa c ts a re c le ar, a s wa s the distric t c ourt’ s a pplic ation of the a

pplic a ble ADAAG provision to the re le va nt fa c ts. Furthe r, C B C ha s not c ite d a ny a uthority c ontra ry to the distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of the ADAAG guide line . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de te rm ining tha t no m ista ke of fa c t or la

w e xiste d tha

t e ntitle d C B C to re lie f from

the judgm e nt unde r R

ule 60(b)(1). 2. W e a l so re

je c t C B C ’ s c onte ntion under R ule 60(b)(3) tha

t Sa lina s m isre pre se nte d m ate ria l fa c ts a nd m isre pre se nte d

the re quire m e nts of ADAAG 2§ 7.2(1), pre ve nting C B C from “ fully and fa irly

pre se nt ing [its] c a se .” Maudlin v . M/V Pe ac oc k

(In reM/V Pe a c oc k

) , 809 F.2d 1403, 1405 (9th C ir. 1987). C B C ha d full a c c e ss to thec ounte r in its own re sta urant, a nd ha d a fa ir opportunity

to pre se nt its c a se be fore the distric t c ourt. Although the distric t c ourt found Sa lina s’ argum e nts m ore pe rsua sive , it wa s not dueto a ny m isre p re se ntation of fa c ts or la

w by Sa lina s . The distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in deny ing C B C ’ s m otion for re lie f from the judgm e nt unde r R

ule 60(b)(3). 3. Fina lly , we re

je c t C B C ’ s c onte ntion tha t it is e ntitle d to judgme nt unde r the c at c ha ll provision of R ule 60(b)(6). C B C argue s tha t judgm e nt in fa

vor of Sa lina s would re sult in injustic e be c a use othe r busine sse s tha

t ha ve sim ila r c he c kout c ounte r c onfigura tions c ould be subje c t to ADA c la im s . B ut the re le va nt inquiry is whe the r the distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of ADAAG § 7.2(1) wa s e rrone ous. C B C ha s fa ile d to e sta blish tha t “ m anife st injustic e ” would re sult to it from the judgm e nt. Latshaw

v . Traine r W

ortham & C o ., Inc . , 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th C ir. 2006) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d ). C B C a lso fa i ls to show a

ny “ e xtra ordina

ry c irc um s ta

nc e s” tha t pre ve nte d it

“ from ta king tim e l y a c t ion to pre ve nt or c orre c t” a judgm e nt tha

t it c la im s wa s e rrone ous. Id. C B C ha d a full a nd fa ir opportunity

to oppose Sa lina s’ m otion for sum m ary judge m e nt. C B C a lso ha d the opportunity to file a dire c t a p pe a l 3c ha lle nging theunde rly ing judgm e nt, whic h it did not do. C B C ’ s fa ilure to do so

doe s not a

m ount to a

n e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e justify ing re lie f tha

t is intende d to be use d only

spa ringly . The distric t c ourt did not a b u se its disc re tion in deny ing C B C re lie f from the judgm e nt unde r R ule 60(b)(6).

• ! • None of C B C ’ s a

rgum e nts m e e ts the high sta nda rd re quire d for re lie f from judgm e nt unde r R

ule 60(b). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing re lie f. AFFIRM E D.

4