DAVID JONES V. SANDER BROUWERS, No. 21-55005 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED SEP 23 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID DARYL JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-55005 D.C. No. 2:20-cv-07067-MWF-PLA MEMORANDUM* SANDER BROUWERS, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 14, 2021** Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. David Daryl Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 2000a action alleging discrimination by a car dealership. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or (b)(6). Colony Cove * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 955 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Jones’s action because Jones only seeks damages, and damages are not available for violations of 42 U.S.C. §2000a et seq. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000a–3; Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 (1968) (“When a plaintiff brings an action under [Title II], he cannot recover damages.”). AFFIRMED. 2 21-55005

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.