CHRIS KOHLER V. MIDWAY LAND, No. 13-55759 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 09 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 13-55759 CHRIS KOHLER, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00148-JMWMC Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* MIDWAY LAND, LLC and SEA FINANCIAL, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Jeffrey T. Miller, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 3, 2015 Pasadena California Before: REINHARDT and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior District Judge.** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation. 1 In this case, brought under the ADA, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. It concluded that although “there would be a material issue of fact with respect to the slope of the areas challenged by Plaintiff because [Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ witnesses, both of whom made measurements after remediation had purportedly occurred,] reach contrary conclusions,” Kohler’s witness had not demonstrated his qualifications to serve as an expert witness; therefore, it refused to consider his declaration. Subsequently, we held in Strong v. Valdez Fine Foods, 724 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2013), that a disabled plaintiff complaining of precisely the same barrier – excessive slopes in a parking lot – was not required to offer expert evidence or precise measurements to survive summary judgment. We therefore vacate the portion of the district court’s judgment challenged on appeal and remand this case for reconsideration in light of Strong.1 VACATED and REMANDED. Costs awarded to Kohler. 1 We also conclude that the allegations in Kohler’s complaint and declaration are sufficient to establish standing under Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.