Edwards

MEMORANDUM

Kathleen Edwards appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. (“Princess”), denial of post-judgment relief, and award of costs in this action arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California law. The facts are known to the parties, and we do not repeat them here except as necessary.

I

“Federal courts are required sua sponte to examine jurisdictional issues such as standing.” D’Lil v. Best W. Encina Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031, 1035 (9th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, the issue of standing is non-waivable. Id. at 1036 . Having examined the record, we are satisfied that Edwards has established that she has standing. Id. at 1037 ; Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods Inc., 293 F.3d 1133, 1137-38 (9th Cir.2002).

II

A

The district court granted summary judgment on grounds that the six-month contractual limitations period in the passage contract for the 2003 cruise barred Edwards’ claims. Invocation of a contractual limitations period to bar a claim is an affirmative defense. Han v. Mobil Oil Corp., 73 F.3d 872, 877-78 (9th Cir.1995). Therefore, Princess bears the burden of…