
    Chris KOHLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CSK AUTO, INC., dba O’Reilly Auto Parts # 2941, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-55317.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 11, 2016.
    
    Filed March 10, 2016.
    Lynn Hubbard, III, Esquire, Law offices of Lynn Hubbard III, Scottlynn J. Hubbard, Esquire, Law offices of Lynn J. Hubbard, IV, Chico, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Peter Sterling Doody, Esquire, Higgs Fletcher & Mack LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: FARRIS, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Chris Kohler appeals the district court’s order entering summary judgment in favor of CSK Auto, Inc. in Kohler’s action under the Americans with Disabilities Act. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

The related case upon which the district court relied to apply the doctrine of issue preclusion, Kohler v. Midway Land, LLC, No. 12-cv-0148 JM (WMc), 2013 WL 10733705 (S.D.Cal., Apr. 5, 2013) (“Midway ”), was vacated in part by this Court on appeal with respect to whether the slopes of the parking spaces and access aisles in the challenged parking area were ADA-compliant. See Kohler v. Midway Land, LLC, 592 Fed.Appx. 622 (9th Cir.2015). Thus, Kohler is not here precluded from claiming that the slopes were not ADA-compliant. We vacate the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of CSK on this ground and remand for further proceedings.

We decline to affirm the district court’s order on the alternative ground that Koh-ler failed to submit evidence to show that the parking area of the shopping center was within the control of CSK. See Katz v. Children’s Hospital of Orange County, 28 F.3d 1520, 1534 (9th Cir.1994). Nowhere in CSK’s moving papers was this issue raised as a ground for granting CSK summary judgment.

Costs awarded to Kohler.

VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.'
     