NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 24 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROY PAYAN; PORTIA MASON; Nos. 19-56111 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE 19-56146 BLIND; NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01697-SVW-SK Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. MEMORANDUM* LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 12, 2021 Submission Vacated February 16, 2021 Resubmitted August 17, 2021 Pasadena, California Before: TALLMAN, CALLAHAN, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge LEE Defendant-Appellant Los Angeles Community College District (“LACCD”) appeals the final judgment and permanent injunction entered against it following * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. bench and jury trial verdicts finding it had systemically discriminated against blind students at its Los Angeles City College (“LACC”) campus in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Plaintiffs-Appellees, Roy Payan, Portia Mason, the National Federation of the Blind, Inc. (“NFB”), and the National Federation of the Blind of California, Inc. (“NFB-CA”) (together, “Plaintiffs”) conditionally cross-appeal the district court’s denial of a jury trial on certain issues of liability. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part; reverse in part; vacate the judgment and injunctive orders; and remand for further proceedings. 1 1. As a threshold matter, LACCD seeks judicial notice of approximately 800 pages of evidence which was not presented to the district court. We decline to notice these exhibits under Fed. R. Evid. 201 because they are “not factored into the record on appeal.” Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. City & County of Honolulu, 455 F.3d 910, 913 n.3 (9th Cir. 2006). Moreover, LACCD’s motion requests notice of the contents of these exhibits to decide contested issues of fact, which is not an appropriate invocation of the rule. See Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010). 1 We explain separately, in a contemporaneously filed published opinion, the district court’s error in construing the applicable disability discrimination laws. 2 2. LACCD contends that neither NFB nor NFB-CA had organizational standing to sue in this matter. We review questions of standing de novo and underlying factual findings for clear error. Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757, 762 n.3 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). The district court found that NFB and NFB-CA both had organizational standing to sue. To prove organizational standing, a party bears “the burden of demonstrating that (1) [it has] suffered an injury-in-fact, meaning that the injury is ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual and imminent,’ (2) the alleged injury is ‘fairly traceable’ to the defendants’ conduct, and (3) it is ‘more than speculative’ that the injury is judicially redressable.” E. Bay …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals