Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond of California, LLC
780 F.3d 1260
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Chris Kohler, a paraplegic wheelchair user, visited a Bed Bath & Beyond (BB&B) in Lake Elsinore and alleged multiple ADA access barriers in the store and shopping-center parking lot.
- Kohler sued under Title III of the ADA and related state laws; he identified ten barriers, with appeal focusing on restroom door maneuvering clearances and parking‑lot slopes/cross‑slopes.
- At summary judgment the district court ruled (1) ADA/Guidelines do not require wall space on the pull side of a restroom door beyond minimum floor clearance; (2) BB&B, as tenant, did not ‘‘own, lease, or operate’’ the parking lot and thus was not liable for parking‑lot barriers; and (3) certain dispenser claims were either moot (paper towel) or not actionable under the ADA (toilet paper).
- The district court granted BB&B summary judgment on Kohler’s ADA claims, dismissed state claims without prejudice, and awarded BB&B $59,892 in attorneys’ fees, finding many of Kohler’s claims frivolous.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on the maneuvering‑space and tenant‑liability issues but reversed the award of attorneys’ fees, holding Kohler’s claims were not frivolous and voluntary remediation did not make BB&B a prevailing party for fee purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA/Guidelines require wall space on the pull side (hinge‑opposite) of a restroom door | Kohler: Guidelines require at least 18 inches of clear wall on the pull side for maneuvering | BB&B: Guidelines require only the minimum floor clearance; no wall‑length requirement | Court: Affirmed — Guidelines do not require wall length opposite hinges beyond floor space requirement |
| Whether a tenant (BB&B) can be held liable for ADA barriers in parking areas under landlord control | Kohler: Lease language labeling parking as "Common Area" and delegating maintenance obligates BB&B; Botosan prevents contracting away responsibility | BB&B: Tenant has no liability for areas exclusively controlled by landlord; ADA obligations attach where party actually owns, leases, or operates | Court: Affirmed — tenant not liable for areas exclusively controlled by landlord; Botosan does not extend tenant liability to landlord‑controlled common areas |
| Whether BB&B was a "prevailing party" entitled to attorneys’ fees after summary judgment and partial mootness | Kohler: Claims were nonfrivolous; voluntary remediation of paper towel dispenser does not make BB&B prevailing | BB&B: Many claims were litigated without foundation or frivolous; voluntary remediation mooted relief | Court: Reversed fee award — plaintiff’s claims were not frivolous; voluntary remediation does not create prevailing‑party fee entitlement |
| Whether dispenser claims (paper towel, toilet paper) were actionable under the ADA | Kohler: Dispensers were inaccessible to him and thus violated ADA/accessibility standards (supported by state rule references) | BB&B: Paper towel issue mooted by remediation; toilet paper claim rested on state law not ADA and thus was nonactionable | Court: Paper towel claim moot (but mootness does not support fee award); toilet paper claim not frivolous despite reliance on state law, so fee award reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Botosan v. Paul McNally Realty, 216 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2000) (landlord and tenant may have concurrent ADA obligations; lease cannot be used to evade ADA duties)
- Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978) (standard for awarding fees to prevailing defendants in civil‑rights cases: only if plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (defendant is a "prevailing party" for fee awards only when there is a judicially sanctioned change in legal relationship; voluntary change by defendant does not suffice)
- Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing mootness where defendant voluntarily removes alleged ADA barriers)
- Doran v. 7‑Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for summary judgment in ADA accessibility suits)