Lary Feezor v. HANESBRANDS DIRECT, LLC, DBA L’Eggs/Hanes/Bali/Playtex Store 103;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LARY FEEZOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HANESBRANDS DIRECT, LLC, DBA
L’Eggs/Hanes/Bali/Playtex Store #103; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-17392
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01165-KJM-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 9, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TASHIMA and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Lary Feezor appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment against
him as to his action brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and California state law. We affirm.
FILED
MAR 05 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Because the parties are familiar with the history of the case, we need not recount it
here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review a grant of
summary judgment de novo. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Parker, 436 F.3d 1109, 1113
(9th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff alleges four ADA violations against Defendant Eddie Bauer and
four ADA violations against Defendant HanesBrands. Plaintiff has conceded that
six of these alleged violations have been remedied, rendering these claims moot.
See Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 905 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Because a
private plaintiff can sue only for injunctive relief (i.e., for removal of the barrier)
under the ADA . . . a defendant’s voluntary removal of alleged barriers prior to
trial can have the effect of mooting a plaintiff’s ADA claim.”).
As for the remaining two claims, Plaintiff alleges that the entrance doors at
the Eddie Bauer and HanesBrands stores feature panel handles that are difficult to
grasp. See 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. D at 4.13.9; 36 C.F.R. Pt. 1191, App. D at 309.4,
404.2.7. However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that these panel handles
constitute an accessibility barrier that deprives him of “full and equal enjoyment”
of a public accommodation in violation of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). In
addition, Plaintiff did not show that the handles were not in compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

An ADA plaintiff can establish standing “by demonstrating injury-in-fact
coupled with an intent to return to a noncompliant facility.” Chapman v. Pier 1
Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 944 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). Plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate injury-in-fact and therefore lacks standing to pursue his
claims.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --