Hubbard

Hubbard v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

Good Law
433 F. Supp. 2d 1134·2006 WL 1454165·2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38061
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMarch 9, 200604 CV 2409 L(POR)California6,802 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lorenz, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc. dba 7-Eleven # 2021-20785’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court finds the motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).

THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (“ADA”)

“ ‘Congress enacted the ADA in 1990 to remedy widespread discrimination against disabled individuals.’ ” Fortyune v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 674 , 121 S.Ct. 1879 , 149 L.Ed.2d 904 (2001)). Plaintiffs’ federal claim arises under Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination against disabled individuals in any place of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (a). “Discrimination includes the failure to remove ‘architectural barriers’ in existing facilities where such removal is ‘readily achievable.’” Parr v. L & L Drive-Inn Restaurant, 96 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1070 (D.Haw.2000); 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). When an entity demonstrates removal of architectural barriers is not readily achievable, discrimination includes the “failure…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.