Bowl

concurring.

I concur in the affirmance and in the panel’s determination that Murphy failed to present sufficient evidence to show that her requested accommodation was necessary as that term is used in Title III of the ADA. I write separately to note that I agree with the district court that the requested use of a ski bike by Murphy’s husband, a person who neither requires, nor is entitled to, accommodation under the ADA, would fundamentally alter the nature of Bridger Bowl’s services.

MEMORANDUM *

Ellyn Murphy (“Murphy”) appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Bridger Bowl, a ski facility, in Murphy’s action alleging denial of a reasonable accommodation in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Montana Human Rights Act. The district court concluded that Bridger Bowl was not required to make the requested accommodation because doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of its services. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm the judgment of the district court, but on a different ground.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. See Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir.2003). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we must determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Id. at 639-40 . We may affirm the grant of summary judgment on any ground supported by the record, even if not relied upon by the district court. See Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., Inc., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th…