The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
14-56737•Jean-Claude Myrtil v. University of Southern California
14-56737Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDec 20, 2016
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEAN-CLAUDE MYRTIL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-56737
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01517-R-PLA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Jean-Claude Myrtil appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his action alleging discrimination under Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“RA”), and
FILED
DEC 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
-- 1 of 2 --
state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 389 F.3d 840, 848 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Myrtil’s ADA,
RA, and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act claims because Myrtil failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was denied public
accommodations due to his disability. See Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d
724, 730-31 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth elements of a Title III ADA claim and
noting that the “Unruh Act is coextensive with the ADA[.]”); Lovell v. Chandler,
303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth elements of a RA § 504 claim).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as unsupported by the record Myrtil’s arguments that the district
court was biased against him and prevented him from presenting oral argument.
AFFIRMED.
14-56737 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.