## Facts

- Kornel Botosan, a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair, visited a real estate office operated by Paul McNally Realty, Inc. in December 1997.
- The office lacked accessible (disabled) parking, and Botosan alleged this prevented him from entering and becoming a customer.
- Botosan did not return after the single visit.
- Botosan sued the tenant/operator (McNally Realty) and the landlord-owners (trustees Chuck N. Ruston and Judith A. Ruston) for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (among other state-law claims).
- Before filing suit, Botosan did not notify a state or local civil rights agency of the alleged access violation.
- Defendants argued, among other things, that (i) Title III required pre-suit notice to a state or local agency, (ii) the lease placed ADA compliance duties on the tenant so the landlords had no liability, (iii) Unruh statutory damages required proof of actual damages, and (iv) Title III exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause power and was unconstitutionally vague.

## Issues

1. Whether Title III of the ADA requires an aggrieved person to give notice to, or exhaust remedies with, a state or local agency before filing a private action in federal court.
2. Whether a landlord can avoid ADA liability to a disabled plaintiff based on a lease provision allocating ADA compliance responsibility to the tenant.
3. Whether a plaintiff must prove actual damages to recover statutory minimum damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act for ADA-based access discrimination.
4. Whether Title III of the ADA is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause or unconstitutionally vague.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Botosan on the ADA and Unruh Act claims.
- Title III does not require pre-suit notice to, or exhaustion with, a state or local agency as a prerequisite to a private federal action.
- Landlords remain potentially liable under Title III notwithstanding a lease that assigns compliance duties to the tenant; contractual allocation does not eliminate statutory obligations to third parties.
- Unruh Act statutory minimum damages are available without proof of actual damages.
- Title III is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s commerce power and is not unconstitutionally vague as applied.

## Legal Principles

- Title III’s enforcement scheme authorizes private plaintiffs to sue in federal court without first notifying or proceeding before state or local agencies.
- Courts apply the statutory text as written; where Congress incorporated specific enforcement provisions, courts do not add additional preconditions absent clear language.
- Under Title III, “any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates” a place of public accommodation may be liable; private lease terms may affect indemnity between contracting parties but not statutory liability to patrons.
- California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act permits recovery of statutory minimum damages per violation without requiring proof of actual damages.
- Regulation of discrimination in public accommodations falls within Congress’s Commerce Clause authority, and Title III’s accessibility obligations are sufficiently definite when read with implementing regulations and standards.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that private Title III ADA plaintiffs may file suit without state-agency notice, that both landlords and tenants can be liable to disabled patrons despite lease allocations of compliance duties, that Unruh Act statutory damages do not require proof of actual damages, and that Title III is constitutional and not impermissibly vague as applied.


Botosan v. Paul McNally Realty, 216 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2000)