FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

DEC 10 2018

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AURELIANO GALVEZ, No. 17-55788

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:16-cv-00887-DOC-KES v.

AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN MEMORANDUM*

CALIFORNIA; THE AMERICAN

AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, INC.;

AUTO CLUB SERVICES, LLC; DOES,

1-10, inclusive,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 13, 2018 Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ, PARKER,** and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation. Aureliano Galvez appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants

summary judgment on his claim that they discriminated against him based on

his disability. Reviewing de novo, we affirm. See Jones v. Royal Admin. Servs.,

Inc., 887 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2018).

A plaintiff alleging discrimination under Title III of the Americans with

Disabilities Act must show that (1) he is disabled; (2) the defendant is a private

entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; (3) the

defendant employed a discriminatory policy or practice; and (4) the defendant

discriminated against the plaintiff based upon his disability by (a) failing to make a

requested reasonable modification that was (b) necessary to accommodate the

disability. Fortyune v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075, 1082 (9th Cir.

2004); see 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (a), (b)(2)(A)(ii).

For reasons including those given by the district court, Galvez has not

offered sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. For

example, he failed to identify what injunctive relief he sought, including whether

he sought a policy change or whether Defendants’ written policy was acceptable

but not implemented. Without this threshold information, we (like the district

court) cannot determine whether the relief Galvez sought was reasonable and

necessary. Therefore, on the record here, Galvez did not carry his burden to show

2 that Defendants failed to make a requested reasonable modification that was

necessary to accommodate his disability. See Fortyune, 364 F.3d at 1082.

AFFIRMED.

3