BLANSETTE v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Defendant. (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-27No. No. 19-16220

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and denial of Blansette's motion for sanctions, as Blansette failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding his ADA claims and failed to establish grounds for sanctions.

Bradley Blansette appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment against him in an Americans with Disabilities Act case. The appellate court found that Blansette presented no genuine factual dispute regarding whether he qualified as a person with a disability under the ADA or whether the defendant discriminated against him because of a disability. The court therefore found no error in the district court's summary judgment decision.

Blansette also sought sanctions against the opposing party, but the appellate court upheld the district court's denial of that motion, finding he had not established proper grounds for sanctions under applicable rules and statutes. The court also declined to consider arguments that Blansette raised for the first time on appeal rather than before the trial court.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether plaintiff qualified as a person with a disability under the ADA
Whether defendant discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of disability
Whether sanctions were warranted against the defendant

Procedural posture

Blansette appealed pro se from the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendant and denial of his motion for sanctions.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Bradley R. Blansette appeals pro se from the district courts summary judgment in his action alleging violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Stephens v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 935 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Blansette failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he is a qualified individual with a disability or was discriminated against by the defendant by reason of disability. See Cohen v. City of Culver City, 754 F.3d 690, 695 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth elements of an ADA Title II claim); Weinreich v. L.A. Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth., 114 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir. 1997) (no ADA violation where plaintiffs exclusion from program was based on plaintiffs failure to provide updated certification of a qualifying disability, and not the fact or perception that plaintiff had a disability).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Blansettes motion for sanctions because Blansette failed to establish grounds for sanctions. See Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard of review and grounds for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991-94 (9th Cir. 2001) (grounds for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and the courts inherent power).

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).

AFFIRMED.