MEMORANDUM **

Gary Ervin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. and various state law causes of action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923, 927 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.

The district court correctly dismissed Ervin’s action for failure to state a claim because defendants, Ervin’s automobile insurance provider and its attorneys, were not “placets] of public accommodation” within the meaning of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a), when they represented him in a state court tort action. See Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that “public accommodations” listed under 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7) are all “actual, physical places” and holding that an insurance company who administered an employer’s disability plan is not a “place of public accommodation”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ervin’s post-judgment motions. See McQuillion v. Duncan, 342 F.3d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 2003) (reviewing denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion).

Ervin’s remaining contentions lack merit.

We deny Appellees’ motion to dismiss, filed on December 19, 2006.

AFFIRMED.