NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JERRY DORAN, No. 11-55031
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00067-JVS-AN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
7-ELEVEN, INC., DBA 7-Eleven,
Defendant - Appellee.
JERRY DORAN, No. 11-55619
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00067-JVS-AN
v.
7-ELEVEN, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Submitted February 5, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jerry Doran appeals the district court’s entry of judgment as a matter of law in
favor of 7-Eleven, Inc. He also appeals the district court’s award of costs and
attorneys’ fees to 7-Eleven. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.1
1. After encountering several alleged violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act,
Cal. Civ. Code § 51, and the California Disabled Persons Act (“CDPA”), Cal. Civ.
Code §§ 54–55.32, at a 7-Eleven store, Doran sued for statutory damages. The district
court properly granted judgment as a matter of law to 7-Eleven because Doran failed
to satisfy the requirements in the 2009 Construction Related Accessibility Standards
Compliance Act (“CRAS”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 55.51–55.57. Doran offered no
evidence that he was deterred from accessing the 7-Eleven, Cal. Civ. Code § 55.56(b),
nor did he prove that he personally encountered the violation and “experienced
difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment because of the violation.” Cal. Civ. Code §
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1
We previously denied Doran’s Request to Take Judicial Notice, filed on
October 12, 2012.
2
55.56(c). Indeed, he stipulated that he suffered no physical or emotional harm from
encountering the alleged violations. A claimant who offers no such evidence is “not
entitled as a matter of law” to recover statutory damages under the CRAS. Mundy v.
Pro-Thro Enters., 121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 274, 278 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 2011); see
also Munson v. Del Taco, 208 P.3d 623, 633–34 (Cal. 2009) (noting that the CRAS
was intended to protect “businesses from abusive access litigation” and “impose
limitations on damages”). By the same token, he is not entitled to recover statutory
damages under the Unruh Act or the CDPA. See Cal. Civ. Code § 55.56(a).
2. The district court properly awarded costs to 7-Eleven. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(d)(1) requires that a prevailing party be awarded costs “[u]nless a
federal statute . . . provides otherwise.” This case involved only state law claims, and
the CDPA’s incorporation by reference of the ADA does not cause the ADA to govern
the costs award. Indeed, had this suit been filed in state court, California law would
also require a costs award. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1032(b).
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Doran’s attorney
to pay the fees 7-Eleven incurred in compelling his client’s deposition as a sanction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The attorney not only unjustifiably required 7-Eleven to
3
move to compel the deposition but also unreasonably twice sought review of the
magistrate’s order granting the motion.
AFFIRMED.
4