FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel. Terry
Goddard, the Attorney General,
and THE CIVIL RIGHTS
DIVISION OF THE ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
and
FREDERICK LINDSTROM by and No. 08-16075
through his legal guardian, RACHEL
LINDSTROM, and LARRY WANGER, D.C. No.
2:07-cv-00703-ROS
Plaintiff-Intervenors-Appellants.
OPINION
v.
HARKINS AMUSEMENT ENTERPRISES,
INC.; HARKINS ENTERPRISES INC.;
HARKINS CAMEL VIEW THEATRES,
INC.; HARKINS THEATRES, INC.;
HARKINS CENTERPOINT, INC.;
HARKINS SHEA CINEMAS, LLC;
HARKINS SEDONA CINEMAS, LLC;
6473
6474 ARIZONA v. HARKINS AMUSEMENT
HARKINS CINEMAS, LLC; HARKINS
ARIZONA MILLS CINEMAS, LLC;
HARKINS METRO CENTER CINEMAS,
LLC; HARKINS REEL DEALS, LLC;
HARKINS PHOENIX CINEMAS, LLC;
HARKINS CHANDLER FASHION
CENTER CINEMAS, LLC; HARKINS
SCOTTSDALE 101 CINEMAS, LLC;
HARKINS YUMA PALMS, LLC;
HARKINS TEMPE MARKETPLACE,
LLC; HARKINS ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, INC.; RED’S MOVIOLA I,
LLC; RED’S MOVIOLA, INC.;
HARKINS SPECTRUM, LLC; HARKINS
CASA GRANDE, LLC; HARKINS
INVESTMENTS, LLC; HARKINS PARKE
WEST, LLC; HARKINS SANTAN
VILLAGE, LLC; HARKINS TUCSON
SPECTRUM, LLC; HARKINS
CHANDLER CROSSROADS, LLC;
HARKINS NORTERRA, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
January 13, 2010—San Francisco, California
Filed April 30, 2010
Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Procter Hug, Jr. and
Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges.
ARIZONA v. HARKINS AMUSEMENT 6475
Opinion by Judge Hug
ARIZONA v. HARKINS AMUSEMENT 6477
COUNSEL
Rose A. Daly-Rooney and Cathleen M. Dooley, Assistant
Attorneys General, Tucson, Arizona, for the appellants. Jose
de Jesus V. Rico, Arizona Center for Disability Law, Tucson,
Arizona, for the appellants-intervenors.
John J. Egbert, The Collier Center, Phoenix, Arizona, and
Richard Lustiger, General Counsel, Harkins Theatres, Scotts-
dale, Arizona, for the appellees.
Brian East, Advocacy, Inc., Austin, Texas; Linda M. Dar-
darian, Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian,
Oakland, California; John F. Stanton, Howrey LLP, Washing-
ton, D.C.; John F. Waldo, Washington State Communication
Access Project, Bainbridge Island, Washington; Marc P.
Charmatz, National Association of the Deaf Law and Advo-
cacy Center, Silver Spring, Maryland; Angela M. Miller,
Attorney, Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, D.C.; M. Brett Burns, Hunton & Williams LLP, San
Francisco, California; Steven John Fellman, GKG Law, PC,
Washington, D.C., for the amici curiae.
OPINION
HUG, Circuit Judge:
The State of Arizona and Plaintiff-Intervenors Frederick
Lindstrom and Larry Wanger brought this suit under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12101-12213, and the Arizonans with Disabilities Act
(“AzDA”), Ariz. Rev. Stat., §§ 41-1492-41-1492.11, to rem-
edy what they allege are discriminatory accommodations at
movie theaters owned by Harkins Amusement Enterprises,
Inc. and its affiliates (“Harkins”). Plaintiffs contend that
Harkins’s failure to provide (1) open or closed captioning for
6478 ARIZONA v. HARKINS AMUSEMENT
hearing impaired patrons and (2) audio descriptions of a
movie’s visual elements for visually impaired patrons violates
the ADA and the AzDA. The district court granted Harkins’s
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on the basis that
the ADA and the AzDA do not require movie theaters to alter
the content of their services. Because closed captioning and
audio descriptions are correctly classified as “auxiliary aids
and services” that a movie theater may be required to provide
under the ADA, we conclude the district court erred in finding
that these services are foreclosed as a matter of law.
I.
Plaintiff-Intervenor Frederick Lindstrom has hearing loss
so severe that he cannot hear or discriminate speech. Because
of his hearing loss, Lindstrom does not fully appreciate a
movie’s soundtrack. Lindstrom alleges that three technologies
would allow him to more fully enjoy movies despite his hear-
ing impairment.
The first two technologies employ open captioning, a tech-
nique that displays captions on a movie screen for an entire
audience. One type of open captioning is achieved by engrav-
ing text onto each individual frame of a film. Only a limited
number of films are engraved with captions. A second method
of open captioning uses open caption projection systems,
which project captions through a separate projector onto a
movie screen. Movie theaters may turn open captioning pro-
jection systems on or off, depending on whether a patron has
requested captions.
The third technology employs closed captioning, a tech-
nique that displays captions to individual viewers using a
seat-based captioning device. One brand of seat-based cap-
tioning is Rear Window Captioning, which displays captions
from a computer disc that is synchronized with a movie. As
a movie appears on a theater’s screen, captions are transmitted
to an LED data panel installed on the rear wall of a theater,
ARIZONA v. HARKINS AMUSEMENT 6479
where the text is reversed. Patrons use portable, clear reflector
panels that make the captions appear superimposed on or
beneath the movie screen. There are other seat-based caption-
ing systems as well, such as wearable caption displays.
Major movie studios distribute a significant number of
wide-release movies with captions for use with Rear Window
Captioning and open caption projection systems. However,
accessibility to these services is limited to theaters that have
equipment for Rear Window Captioning or open caption pro-
jection systems.
Plaintiff-Intervenor Larry Wanger is totally blind in his
right eye and has corrected visual acuity of less than 20/400
in his left eye. Because of his impairment, Wanger cannot see
the visual aspects of a movie. Wanger alleges that a technol-
ogy known as “descriptive narration” would allow him to
appreciate visual aspects of a movie by using a headset.
Descriptive narration enables people to hear information
about key visual aspects of a movie through descriptions of
scenery, facial expressions, costumes, action settings, and
scene changes during natural pauses in dialogue. Major movie
studios distribute wide-release movies with descriptive narra-
tion capability, but accessibility to this service is limited to
theaters that have equipment for audio descriptions.
Harkins owns and operates 21 theaters with 262 auditori-
ums in Arizona. Harkins shows movies with engraved open
captioning, but only at limited times at two theater locations.
None of Harkins’s Arizona theaters have equipment for
descriptive narration.
In August 2005, Larry Wanger visited Harkins’s North
Valley 16 Theaters to see a movie with descriptive narration.
A Harkins employee informed him that the theater did not
have descriptive narration. On December 14, 2005, Rachel
Lindstrom, Frederick Lindstrom’s mother, called the box
office of North Valley 16 Theaters to find a captioned show-
6480 ARIZONA v. HARKINS AMUSEMENT
ing of King Kong. Ms. Lindstrom was told that there were no
open-captioned showings of King Kong or auxiliary aids to
display closed captioning at any of the theater’s auditoriums.
Larry Wanger and Rachel Lindstrom, on behalf of her son,
filed complaints of public accommodation discrimination with
Arizona’s Civil Rights Division. After an investigation, the
Division found that there was reasonable cause to believe that
Harkins discriminated against Frederick Lindstrom and Larry
Wanger by denying full and equal enjoyment of Harkins’s
services in violation of the AzDA.
The State of Arizona subsequently filed suit in Arizona
Superior Court alleging violations of the AzDA on behalf of
Frederick Lindstrom, Larry Wanger, and a putative class of
similarly situated persons. Lindstrom and Wanger also joined
the suit as plaintiff-intervenors alleging violations of the ADA
and AzDA. Harkins removed the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona and moved to dis-
miss the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The district court granted
the motion in a published March 28, 2008, order, Arizona v.
Harkins Amusement Enterprises, Inc., 548 F. Supp. 2d 723
(D. Ariz. 2008), which Plaintiffs now appeal.
II.
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure
to state a claim. Siracusano v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., 585
F.3d 1167, 1177 (9th Cir. 2009). We accept the Plaintiffs’
allegations as true and construe them in the light most favor-
able to Plaintiffs. Id. Dismissal is inappropriate unless Plain-
tiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim for relief that is plausible
on its face. Id.
A. Americans with Disabilities Act
[1] Congress enacted the ADA “to provide clear, strong,
consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination
ARIZONA v. HARKINS AMUSEMENT 6481
against individuals with disabilities . . . .” 42 U.S.C.
§ 12101(b)(2). Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination
by public accommodations, prescribing generally that
No individual shall be discriminated against on the
basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of
the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,
or accommodations of any place of public accommo-
dation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to),
or operates a place of public accommodation.
42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). To prevail on a discrimination claim
under Title III, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he is disabled
within the meaning of the ADA; (2) the defendant is a private
entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accom-
modation; and (3) the plaintiff was denied public accommoda-
tions by the defendant because of his disability. Molski v. M.J.
Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir. 2007). The parties do
not dispute that Plaintiffs Lingstrom and Wanger are disabled
or that Harkins owns a place of public accommodation. This
appeal centers on whether Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged
that Harkins discriminated against them on account of their
disabilities.
[2] Title 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii) provides that dis-
crimination by public accommodations includes “a failure to
take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individ-
ual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated
or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because
of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless the entity
can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally
alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advan-
tage, or accommodation being offered or would result in an
undue burden.”
[3] The ADA defines “auxiliary aids and services”:
The term “auxiliary aids and services” includes—
6482 ARIZONA v. HARKINS AMUSEMENT
(A) qualified interpreters or other effective methods
of making aurally delivered materials available to
individuals with hearing impairments;
(B) qualified readers, taped texts, or other effective
methods of making visually delivered materials
available to individuals with visual impairments;
(C) acquisition or modification of equipment or
devices; and
(D) other similar services and actions.
42 U.S.C. § 12103(1) (emphases added). Federal regulations
provide more examples:
The term “auxiliary aids and services” includes—
(1) Qualified interpreters, notetakers, computer-
aided transcription services, written materials, tele-
phone handset amplifiers, assistive listening devices,
assistive listening systems, telephones compatible
with hearing aids, closed caption decoders, open and
closed captioning, telecommunications devices for
deaf persons (TDD’s), videotext displays, or other
effective methods of making aurally delivered mate-
rials available to individuals with hearing impair-
ments;
(2) Qualified readers, taped texts, audio recordings,
Brailled materials, large print materials, or other
effective methods of making visually delivered mate-
rials available to individuals with visual impair-
ments;
(3) Acquisition or modification of equipment or
devices; and
ARIZONA v. HARKINS AMUSEMENT 6483
(4) Other similar services and actions.
28 C.F.R. § 36.303(b) (emphases added).
[4] Movie captioning and audio descriptions clearly are
auxiliary aids and services. Captioning and audio descriptions
are “effective methods of making [aurally or visually] deliv-
ered materials available to individuals with [hearing and
visual] impairments.” 42 U.S.C. § 12103(1)(A)-(B); 28 C.F.R.
§ 36.303(b)(1)-(2); see Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d
1124, 1138 (9th Cir. 2001) (hearing-impaired plaintiff sur-
vives summary judgment with claim that superior court failed
to provide real-time captioning of oral testimony). Indeed,
“open and closed captioning” and “audio recordings” are
listed as examples of auxiliary aids and services in the regula-
tions. The district court reasoned that captioning and descrip-
tive narration do not fall within § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii)’s
mandate because, under Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corp., 198 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2000), “the scope of the
ADA’s prohibition against discrimination under § 12182(a) is
limited to the goods and services offered by an entity.”
Harkins, 548 F. Supp. 2d at 727-28 (internal quotation marks
omitted). In other words, the ADA “does not require provi-
sion of different goods or services, just nondiscriminatory
enjoyment of those that are provided.” Weyer, 198 F.3d at
1115. We now turn to Weyer and its bearing on this case.
Weyer concerned an insured’s challenge to her long-term
disability insurance policy’s limit on mental illness benefits
that did not similarly limit non-mental illness benefits. 198
F.3d at 1107-08. The plaintiff alleged that the insurer and her
employer violated the ADA by offering and administering a
plan that discriminated against those with mental disabilities.
Id. at 1108. Affirming the district court’s grant of summary
judgment, we held that the insurer could not be held liable
under Title III because, among other reasons, Title III does
not address the terms of policies that the insurer sold. Id. at
1115. We reasoned:
6484 ARIZONA v. HARKINS AMUSEMENT
Title III prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of
the “goods, services, facilities, privileges, advan-
tages, or accommodations of any place of public
accommodation.” The ordinary meaning of this lan-
guage is that whatever goods or services the place
provides, it cannot discriminate on the basis of dis-
ability in providing enjoyment of those goods and
services. This language does not require provision of
different goods or services, just nondiscriminatory
enjoyment of those that are provided. Thus, a book-
store cannot discriminate against disabled people in
granting access, but need not assure that the books
are available in Braille as well as print. Likewise, an
insurance office must be physically accessible to the
disabled but need not provide insurance that treats
the disabled equally with the non-disabled.
Id. (internal quotation marks, brackets, and footnote omitted).
We further concluded that the plaintiff’s Title III claim
against her employer, Fox, similarly failed:
[T]here is no discrimination under the Act where dis-
abled individuals are given the same opportunity as
everyone else, so insurance distinctions that apply
equally to all employees cannot be discriminatory.
Fox did not treat Weyer any differently because of
her disability. It simply gave her the same opportu-
nity that it gave all the rest of its employees—buy
into the group policy with the limitation at the
cheaper, group price or buy her own individual
insurance coverage without the limitation at what-
ever the market price may be.
Id. at 1116 (footnote omitted). Analogizing from Weyer,
Harkins argues that the ADA does not require it to alter the
content of its services by offering captions and descriptive
narration; rather, the ADA only requires it to offer all persons
equal access to its services.
ARIZONA v. HARKINS AMUSEMENT 6485
[5] We disagree with Harkins that captioning and descrip-
tive narration fall outside the ADA as a matter of law. As
stated previously, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii) provides
that discrimination includes “a failure to take such steps as
may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability
is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated
differently than other individuals because of the absence of
auxiliary aids and services . . . .” (emphasis added). In argu-
ing that the ADA’s requirement of auxiliary aids and services
is limited by Weyer, Harkins puts the cart before the horse:
Weyer does not limit subsection 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)
(A)(iii)’s requirement that a public accommodation provide
auxiliary aids and services; the requirement that establish-
ments provide auxiliary aids and services limits Weyer’s gen-
eral rule that public accommodations do not have to provide
different services for the disabled. Although Weyer may be
controlling in the provision of goods and services generally,
here Plaintiffs are seeking an auxiliary aid, which is specifi-
cally mandated by the ADA to prevent discrimination of the
disabled.
For similar reasons, Harkins’s reliance on McNeil v. Time
Insurance Co., 205 F.3d 179 (5th Cir. 2000), is misplaced. In
McNeil, the plaintiff purchased a health insurance policy that
limited coverage for AIDS-related benefits to $10,000 during
the first two years of the policy. Id. at 182. Within the first
year of the policy, the plaintiff was diagnosed with AIDS. Id.
When the insurance company refused to pay more than
$10,000 of his medical bills, the plaintiff brought suit under
Title III of the ADA. Id. Affirming a grant of summary judg-
ment, the Fifth Circuit held that the plain language of Title III
“demonstrates that a business is not required to alter or mod-
ify the goods or services it offers to satisfy Title III”; there-
fore, because the policy offered the same terms to those
without AIDS, the policy’s limit did not discriminate on the
basis of basis of disability. See id. at 186, 188-89.
6486 ARIZONA v. HARKINS AMUSEMENT
The McNeil court also noted that “[t]he provisions in
§§ 12182(b)(1)(A)(i)-(iii) concerning the opportunity to bene-
fit from or to participate in a good or service do not imply that
the goods or services must be modified to ensure that opportu-
nity or benefit. Rather, this section only refers to impediments
that stand in the way of a person’s ability to enjoy that good
or service in the form that the establishment normally pro-
vides it.” Id. at 186 n.9. The district court in this case relied
on this passage to reason that § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii)1 does not
require accommodations to offer different services. Harkins,
548 F. Supp. 2d at 728.
The district court’s reasoning effectively eliminates the
duty of a public accommodation to provide auxiliary aids and
services. By its very definition, an auxiliary aid or service is
an additional and different service that establishments must
offer the disabled. For example, a courthouse that was acces-
sible only by steps could not avoid ADA liability by arguing
that everyone—including the wheelchair bound—has equal
access to the steps. And an office building could not avoid
having to put Braille numbering on the buttons in its elevator
by arguing that everyone—including the blind—has equal
access to the written text. Although Weyer and McNeil sup-
port the proposition that the content of a good or service need
not be altered under the ADA, neither of those decisions turn
on whether a place of public accommodation must provide an
auxiliary aid or service that falls within the mandate of
§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii).
[6] Harkins also contends that regulations promulgated by
the Department of Justice defeat any requirement that Harkins
provide captioning or descriptive narration. In particular,
Harkins points to the DOJ’s Preamble to Regulation of Non-
discrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommo-
1
The district court may have overlooked that McNeil referenced
§§ 12182(b)(1)(A)(i)-(iii) and not § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). See Harkins, 548
F. Supp. 2d at 728.
ARIZONA v. HARKINS AMUSEMENT 6487
dations and in Commercial Facilities, which provides
commentary on Title 28, part 36 of the Code of Federal Regu-
lations. There, the commentary plainly states that “[m]ovie
theaters are not required by § 36.303 to present open-
captioned films.” 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, App. B(C), at 727 (2009).
Plaintiffs dispute that the commentary precludes a court
from requiring open captioning through open caption projec-
tion systems, which did not exist when the commentary was
first published in 1991. Plaintiffs cite to two authorities in an
effort to distinguish between engraved open captioning and
open caption projection systems. The first, 28 C.F.R.
§ 36.307(a), provides, “This part does not require a public
accommodation to alter its inventory to include accessible or
special goods that are designed for, or facilitate use by, indi-
viduals with disabilities.” Plaintiffs argue that the commen-
tary’s provision concerning open captioning is no longer
viable now that open captioning is available through open
caption projection systems, which are not special goods.
Plaintiffs also point to a House Report suggesting that courts
should reconsider the auxiliary aids and services required by
the ADA as new technology develops:
The Committee wishes to make it clear that techno-
logical advances can be expected to further enhance
options for making meaningful and effective oppor-
tunities available to individuals with disabilities.
Such advances may require public accommodations
to provide auxiliary aids and services in the future
which today would not be required because they
would be held to impose undue burdens on such
entities.
H.R. Rep. No. 101-485(II), at 108 (1990), reprinted in 1990
U.S.C.C.A.N. 303, 391.
[7] We disagree with Plaintiffs that the DOJ’s commentary
has been superceded by technological development. If this
6488 ARIZONA v. HARKINS AMUSEMENT
court were to accept Plaintiffs’ interpretation, the DOJ’s
detailed interpretive guidance could be circumvented when-
ever a new technology for providing open captioning becomes
available. Entities such as Harkins should be able to rely on
the plain import of the DOJ’s commentary until it is revised.
Because the commentary to Title 28, part 36.303 states that
open captions are not required by § 36.303, we conclude that
open captioning is not mandated by the ADA as a matter of
law.2
[8] However, the DOJ’s commentary does not insulate
Harkins from providing closed captioning. The commentary
does not mention closed captioning, and the difference
between open and closed captioning is more than linguistic.
Only individual viewers see closed captions, whereas the
entire audience sees open captions and is likely distracted by
them. Thus, unlike open captioning, closed captioning is not
foreclosed by the commentary. See also 28 C.F.R.
§ 36.303(b)(1) (defining “auxiliary aids and services” to
include “closed captioning”).
In an effort to avoid providing captioning, Harkins points
to two interpretations of the ADA contained in the Federal
Register. The first interpretation comes from a July 23, 2004,
2
Although the DOJ’s interpretation appears to conflict with the 28
C.F.R. § 36.303(b)(1)’s inclusion of open captioning as an example of
“auxiliary aids and services,” the commentary is nonetheless entitled to
deference in this case. As stated by the Supreme Court in Thomas Jeffer-
son University v. Shalala, we must defer to an agency’s interpretation of
its own regulation unless an “alternative reading is compelled by the regu-
lation’s plain language or by other indications of [the agency’s] intent at
the time of the regulation’s promulgation.” 512 U.S. 504, 512 (1994).
Although 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(b)(1) lists open captioning as an example of
auxiliary aids and services, not every auxiliary aid and service is mandated
by the ADA. Establishments can avoid providing auxiliary aids and ser-
vices by showing that they fundamentally alter its service or impose an
undue burden. 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(a). In the context of open captioning,
the DOJ could have reasonably concluded that open captioning would
constitute a fundamental alteration of the movie screening.
ARIZONA v. HARKINS AMUSEMENT 6489
set of guidelines published by the Architectural and Transpor-
tation Barriers Compliance Board (“Access Board”) and
states that: “[The American with Disabilities Act Accessibil-
ity Guidelines] and the Department of Justice’s ADA regula-
tions do not require captioning of movies for persons who are
deaf.” 69 Fed. Reg. 44084-01, 44138. The second interpreta-
tion was published in a DOJ notice of proposed rulemaking
on June 17, 2008, and states, “The Department is considering
options under which it might require that movie theater own-
ers and operators exhibit movies that are captioned for patrons
who are deaf or hard of hearing.” 73 Fed. Reg. 34508-01, 34530.3
Harkins contends that the Access Board’s interpretation
shows that captions are not required under the ADA, and the
DOJ’s use of the term “might” contained in the second inter-
pretation implies that there is no such requirement under the
current regulations.
The agency interpretations proffered by Harkins do not
stand on the same footing as the DOJ’s commentary to title
28, part 36.303 contained in the Code of Federal Regulations.
This court has declined to give deference to Access Board
guidelines that have not yet been adopted by the DOJ.4 See
Miller v. Cal. Speedway Corp., 536 F.3d 1020, 1027 n.1 (9th
Cir. 2008). Moreover, we have refused to defer to a proposed
regulation published by the DOJ itself. See Cal. Rural Legal
Assistance v. Legal Services Corp., 917 F.2d 1171, 1173 (9th
Cir. 1990). The DOJ’s interpretation in a notice of proposed
rulemaking is similarly unpersuasive. The ADA interpreta-
tions urged by Harkins are, therefore, of no consequence here.
3
The DOJ’s website states that the DOJ withdrew its draft final rules to
amend the implementing regulations to Title III of the ADA while the
rules are reviewed by officials appointed by President Obama. See Pro-
posed ADA Regulations Withdrawn from OMB Review,
http://www.ada.gov/ADAregswithdraw09.htm (last visited Apr. 21, 2010).
4
Amicus National Association of Theatre Owners, Inc.’s reliance on a
May 2, 2001, Access Board press release is similarly misplaced, as the
DOJ has not adopted the Access Board’s position as its own. Cf. Miller,
536 F.3d at 1031.
6490 ARIZONA v. HARKINS AMUSEMENT
Finally, we are unpersuaded by Harkins’s argument that
requiring it to provide captions and descriptive narration
would require us to ignore the word “auxiliary” in 42 U.S.C.
§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii), which connotes a “subsidiary” or “sup-
plementary” relationship of one thing to another. Appellee Br.
at 19 (citing Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary
128 (2d ed. 1979)). First, the ADA provides its own definition
of “auxiliary aids and services,” which includes “effective
methods of making aurally delivered materials available to
individuals with hearing impairments[,]” “effective methods
of making visually delivered materials available to individuals
with visual impairments[,]” and “acquisition or modification
of equipment or devices . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 12103(1). Closed
captioning and descriptive narration fall comfortably within
the scope of this definition. Furthermore, even accepting
Harkins’s parsing of the statutory definition, movie theaters’
primary service is to screen films. See Fortyune v. Am. Multi-
Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075, 1084 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus, cap-
tions and descriptive narration are not so removed from a the-
ater’s usual business that they cannot be deemed “subsidiary”
or “supplementary.”
[9] In sum, the district court was correct in holding that the
ADA does not require Harkins to utilize open captioning as
a matter of law. However, the district court erred in holding
that closed captioning and descriptive narration are not
required by the ADA. Our holding does not necessarily mean
that Plaintiffs will be entitled to closed captioning and
descriptive narration in Harkins’s theaters. Harkins may still
be able to avail itself of several defenses, such as the conten-
tion that the devices would fundamentally alter the nature of
its services or constitute an undue burden. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii); 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(a).
B. Arizonans with Disabilities Act
The district court based its dismissal of Plaintiffs’ AzDA
claim on its finding that “Plaintiffs make no argument that the
ARIZONA v. HARKINS AMUSEMENT 6491
AzDA is broader than the ADA.” Harkins, 548 F. Supp. 2d
at 731-32. The district court never addressed whether the
AzDA is unconstitutionally vague or requires establishments
to provide auxiliary aids and services to disabled individuals.
We decline to do so in the first instance, and the district court
may consider Harkins’s arguments on remand.
C. Standing
Finally, Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s finding that
Plaintiff-Intervenors lack standing to challenge a failure to
provide captions or descriptive narration at any theater
besides North Valley 16. The district court found the Plain-
tiffs lacked standing to challenge a lack of accommodations
in other theaters because “they have not alleged they
attempted to access any of Harkins’ other theaters or that they
would access any of the other theaters if the requested ser-
vices were provided.” Harkins, 548 F. Supp. 2d at 726 n.5.
We need not reach the matter of standing given that the dis-
trict court did not consider Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion for
leave to file a first amended complaint. See id. at 732 (deny-
ing Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion for leave to file a first
amended complaint as moot). The proposed first amended
complaint alleges that Lindstrom and Wanger attempted to
find theaters other than North Valley 16 that would accommo-
date their needs. Because the district court did not consider
these allegations, the district court must reconsider Plaintiff-
Intervenors’ motion to amend their complaint in light of this
court’s conclusion that they have stated a claim under the
ADA.
III.
[10] The district court incorrectly construed the mandate of
42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii) that a place of public accom-
modation must provide auxiliary aids and services so that a
disabled person is not denied the public accommodation’s ser-
vices. We therefore reverse the district court’s dismissal of
6492 ARIZONA v. HARKINS AMUSEMENT
Plaintiffs’ ADA claim seeking closed captioning and descrip-
tive narration. Because the commentary to part 36.303, title
28 of Code of Federal Regulations states that movie theaters
are not required to present open-captioned films, however, we
affirm the district court’s finding that open captioning is not
required by the ADA as a matter of law. Finally, because the
district court did not consider Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion to
file a first amended complaint, the district court must recon-
sider the issue of standing on remand.
Each party is to bear their own costs.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.