Case Name: Sandi RUSH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DENCO ENTERPRISES, INC., DBA Denny's, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-28
Citations: 593 F. App'x 727
Docket Number: No. 12-56565
Parties: Sandi RUSH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DENCO ENTERPRISES, INC., DBA Denny’s, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 593
Pages: 727–727

Head Matter:
Sandi RUSH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DENCO ENTERPRISES, INC., DBA Denny’s, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-56565.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 4, 2015.
Filed Feb. 28, 2015.
Scottlynn J. Hubbard, Esquire, Law Offices of Lynn J. Hubbard, IV, Chico, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David Warren Peters, Esquire, General Counsel, Lawyers Against Lawsuit Abuse, APC, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: REINHARDT and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior District Judge.
The Honorable J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Based on our decision in Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond of California, LLC, 778 F.3d 827, No. 12-56727, 2015 WL 691275 (9th Cir. Feb. 19, 2015), we conclude that the district court erred by granting summary judgment to Rush based on (1) Rush's argument that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) require at least eighteen inches of strike-side wall space and (2) Denco's failure to rebut Rush's prima facie case of discrimination.
Rush did not present a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA because, as a matter of law, the ADAAG do not require any length of wall space on the strike-side of a doorframe. See Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond of California, No. 12-56727, slip op. at 11-12, — F.3d at —-(9th Cir. Feb. 19, 2015). Also, summary judgment was not warranted by Denco's lack of response in opposition because Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should not "be misconstrued as condoning summary judgment by default." Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 917 (9th Cir.2013) (citing the 2010 Advisory Committee Notes accompanying Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
We reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion in Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond of California, LLC and our decision here.
Further, Appellee's Motion to Strike Appellant's Excerpts of Record is DENIED.
' REVERSED AND REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
. Because we reverse the district court on these grounds, we do not reach any of Den-co's other issues.