dissenting in part:
I agree with the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Exchange Club of Culver City on William Cohen’s claims predicated on the Disabled Persons Act (DPA) and his claims predicated on the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
I do not agree that the sidewalk Cohen sought to use was “the only disabled access route that he knew about.” As the district court noted, there was undisputed evidence in the record that two wheelchair access ramps were located 20 yards east and 90 yards west of the location where Cohen chose to access the sidewalk. Cohen offered no explanation regarding his failure to utilize either of these alternative access routes and never expressed any lack of knowledge of their existence. California courts have not found denial of equal access where an alternative access route is available. See Urhausen v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc., 155 Cal.App.4th 254, 265-66, 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 838 (2007). Therefore, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the disposition reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Cohen’s claim under the DPA.