613 F. App'x 584
9th Cir.2015Background
- Butler, a disabled shopper, challenged WinCo Foods’ store policy banning service animals from grocery carts under the ADA.
- District court denied Butler’s summary judgment motion on the ADA claim and granted in part WinCo’s cross-motion, leaving factual disputes.
- After that ruling, WinCo offered Butler an individualized exception allowing her service animal in a cart if the animal was in a carrier.
- The district court dismissed Butler’s ADA claim as moot based on WinCo’s offered exception and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- Butler appealed; the Ninth Circuit considered whether the voluntary exception mooted the ADA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WinCo’s offer of an individualized exception moots Butler’s ADA claim | The exception is temporary/unenforceable; voluntary cessation does not moot suit | The exception resolves Butler’s grievance, so no live controversy remains | Exception does not moot the claim; voluntary cessation exception applies |
| Who bears burden to show mootness after voluntary cessation | N/A (Butler contends claim remains live) | WinCo must show it is absolutely clear the conduct won’t recur | WinCo failed to meet the heavy burden to show nonrecurrence |
| Whether the district court’s dismissal requires reversal and remand | Butler seeks reversal and reconsideration of supplemental jurisdiction | WinCo relies on dismissal as final disposition | Reversed as to ADA claim; remanded to district court to reconsider supplemental jurisdiction |
| Appealability of denial of Butler’s summary judgment motion | Butler seeks review of denial | WinCo argues merits resolved or moot | Ninth Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review denial of summary judgment motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (voluntary cessation does not ordinarily moot a case; defendant bears heavy burden to show nonrecurrence)
- Am. Cargo Transp., Inc. v. United States, 625 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2010) (defendant must show it is absolutely clear wrongful behavior will not recur)
- Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2013) (transiency of policy changes insufficient to establish mootness)
- Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (standards for exercising supplemental jurisdiction)
- Rodriguez v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 627 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) (denial of summary judgment is not appealable)
- Burke v. Ernest W. Hahn, Inc., 592 F.2d 542 (9th Cir. 1979) (same)