Sandi Rush v. Denco Enterprises
Opinion
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).