Robin Fortyune v. City of Lomita
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17269
9th Cir.2014Background
- Fortyune, a paraplegic, sues the City of Lomita alleging ADA and CDPA violations due to nonaccessible on-street parking.
- The district court denied the City’s 12(b)(6) motion, rejecting the idea that ADA regulations require no accessible on-street parking absent implementing regulations.
- The City sought interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); the motions panel and district court granted certification.
- Fortyune had originally alleged both parallel and diagonal on-street parking; he later dismissed parallel claims, leaving only diagonal stall parking claims.
- The core issue is whether the City’s failure to provide accessible diagonal on-street parking violates Title II of the ADA and the CDPA, given absent regulatory design specifications for on-street parking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Title II ADA require accessible on-street parking without specific design regulations? | Fortyune argues ADA broadly obligates accessibility for all public services, including on-street parking. | The City contends no obligation exists absent specific regulatory standards addressing on-street parking. | Yes; public entities must provide accessible on-street parking. |
Key Cases Cited
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (U.S. 2001) (ADA remedial breadth)
- Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2002) (services, programs, or activities broad under ADA)
- BAART v. City of Antioch, 179 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1999) (public entities’ broad obligation under ADA)
- Reich v. Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co., 32 F.3d 440 (9th Cir. 1994) (regulatory absence does not displace statutory duty)
- Cohen v. City of Culver City, 754 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 2014) (construe ADA broadly to advance remedial purpose)
- Or. Cinemas, Inc. v. Cinemas, 339 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2003) (deference to DOJ interpretations in unanticipated contexts)