
    Wayne ROMANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INCLINE VILLAGE GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-17153.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 24, 2012.
    Ting Zhou, Monterey Park, CA, pro se.
    Todd J. Cochran, DOJ — U.S. Department Of Justice Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Wayne Romans appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Arizona state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s application of lach-es. Grupo Gigante SA De CV v. Dallo & Co., 391 F.3d 1088, 1101 (9th Cir.2004). We reverse and remand.

The district court abused its discretion by sua sponte dismissing the action based on laches because, at this point in the proceedings, the record is insufficient to determine whether Romans received a valid right-to-sue letter from the Nevada Employment Rights Commission giving him notice of his deadline to file suit, whether Romans delayed filing his suit, and whether defendant was prejudiced. See Brown v. Cont’l Can Co., 765 F.2d 810, 814-15 (9th Cir.1985) (laches not available as a matter of law where material disputes exist as to whether plaintiff delayed seeking a right-to-sue letter or filing suit, and not applicable unless defendant was prejudiced); cf. Boone v. Mech. Specialties Co., 609 F.2d 956, 958-60 & n. 3 (9th Cir.1979) (applying laches at summary judgment where plaintiffs seven-year delay in seeking right-to-sue letter caused defendant actual prejudice).

Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings.

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

REVERSED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     