Legal Document: 15302313

On May 11, 2024 a 01 Garcia v. 2165 North Main St Holdings LLC was filed involving a dispute between and in the District Court of Monterey County.

Preview
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0363D848-19B3-467E-8CBC-02D094CDCDC2

1 THE REDDY LAW FIRM LLC
Prathima Reddy Price, Esq., SBN 321378
2 Sumedh Rishi, Esq., SBN 348167
103 Bay Park Terrace, Alameda, CA 94502
3
(646) 468-4257; (510) 217-3541 fax
4 preddy@thereddylaw.com
eserve@thereddylaw.com
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF MONTEREY

10
11
Orlando Garcia, Case No.
12 Plaintiff,
UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE
13 v.
Verified Complaint for Damages and
14 Injunctive Relief for Violations of:
2165 North Main St Holdings LLC, a
15 California Limited Liability Company; Unruh Civil Rights Act; California
Disabled Persons Act
La Vina Carniceria Y Pescaderia, Inc.,
16
a California Corporation, dba LA Vina
17 Market; and DOES 1 through 50 ACTION SUBJECT TO THE
inclusive SUPPLEMENTAL FEE IN
18 Defendants. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
19 70616.5
20
Plaintiff Orlando Garcia complains of 2165 North Main St Holdings LLC, a
21
California Limited Liability Company; La Vina Carniceria Y Pescaderia, Inc., a California
22
Corporation, dba LA Vina Market; and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive (“Defendants”); and
23
alleges as follows:
24
25
PARTIES:
26
1. Plaintiff is a California resident with physical disabilities and a member of a
27 protected class of persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Plaintiff
28 suffers from Cerebral Palsy. He has manual dexterity issues. He cannot walk. He uses a

Verified Complaint
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0363D848-19B3-467E-8CBC-02D094CDCDC2

1 wheelchair for mobility.
2. Defendant 2165 North Main St Holdings LLC owned the real property located at
2
or about 2165 N Main St, Salinas, California, in May 2022.
3
3. Defendant 2165 North Main St Holdings LLC owns the real property located at or
4
about 4879 Topanga Cyn Blvd, Woodland Hills, California, currently.
5
4. Defendant La Vina Carniceria Y Pescaderia, Inc., owned La Vina Market (“Store”)
6
located at or about 2165 N Main St, Salinas, California, in May 2022.
7
5. Defendant La Vina Carniceria Y Pescaderia, Inc., owns La Vina Market located at
8
or about 2165 N Main St, Salinas, California, currently.
9 6. Plaintiff does not know the true names of Defendants, their business capacities,
10 their ownership connection to the property and business, or their relative responsibilities in
11 causing the access violations herein complained of, and alleges a joint venture and common
12 enterprise by all such Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of
13 Defendants herein is responsible in some capacity for the events herein alleged, or is a
14 necessary party for obtaining appropriate relief. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend when
15 the true names, capacities, connections, and responsibilities of Defendants are ascertained.

16
17 JURISDICTION:
7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action as a court of general
18
jurisdiction. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants
19
conduct substantial business in the County of Monterey.
20
8. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendants conduct business in this County.
21
9. Unlimited jurisdiction is proper because Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction
22
ordering compliance with the Unruh Civil Rights Act and California Disabled Persons Act.
23
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS:
24 10. Plaintiff went to the Store on May 11, 2022, with the intention to avail himself of
25 its goods, services, privileges, or advantages (“Benefits”) motivated in part to determine if
26 Defendants comply with the disability access laws. While trying to patronize the facility,
27 Plaintiff personally encountered unlawful barriers on May 11, 2022. Plaintiff revisited the
28 facility on May 12, 2022 and May 13, 2022 hoping the barriers would have been

Verified Complaint
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0363D848-19B3-467E-8CBC-02D094CDCDC2

1 remediated by then. However, Plaintiff encountered these barriers once again. During all
his visits, Plaintiff could not avail himself of the Store’s services without difficulty.
2
11. The Store is a facility open to the public, a place of public accommodation, and a
3
business establishment.
4
12. Plaintiff was in the area shopping and went to the Store for some refreshments.
5
13. Unfortunately, on the dates of Plaintiff’s visits, the facility failed to comply with
6
ADA Standards as it relates to wheelchair users like Plaintiff.
7
14. Plaintiff observed or encountered the following non-compliant conditions:
8
Feature Compliance Issue Standard1
9 Door Hardware The doorway clear passage § 404
10 width was 28 inches and
11 inaccessible to wheelchair
12 users.
13 Path of travel Path of travel inside the store § 403
14 narrowed to less than 36
15 inches in width in some
16 places.

17 15. The above features are all available Benefits offered to customers but not offered

18 in conformance with the ADA standard as they relate to Plaintiff’s disability.
16. The failure to provide accessible door hardware denied Plaintiff full and equal
19
access as it could not be opened fully without the use of both hands.
20
17. The failure to provide accessible door hardware denied Plaintiff full and equal
21
access because the plaintiff was unable to enter the store without difficulty.
22
18. The failure to provide accessible path of travel denied Plaintiff full and equal access
23
because Plaintiff was unable to navigate inside the store without difficulty.
24
19. Plaintiff believes that there are other elements of the above features that likely fail
25
to comply with the ADA Standards and seeks to have fully compliant Benefits for
26 wheelchair users.
27 20. On information and belief, the above conditions currently exist.
28
1
Cites to the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design unless otherwise indicated.

Verified Complaint
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0363D848-19B3-467E-8CBC-02D094CDCDC2

1 21. These above barriers relate to and impact Plaintiff’s disability. Plaintiff personally
encountered these barriers.
2
3 22. Additionally, while Plaintiff did not personally encounter the following personally,
4 investigation of the claim made Plaintiff aware of the following:
5 Feature Compliance Issue Standard
6 § 404
Door Hardware The door cannot be opened
7 at 90 degrees as the doorway
8 passage is blocked by cases
9 of water crates.
10 § 502
Parking The parking spaces marked
11 and reserved for persons
12 with disabilities were faded
13 and not maintained by
14 Defendants.
15 23. As a wheelchair user, Plaintiff benefits from and is entitled to use wheelchair
16 accessible facilities. The above inaccessible conditions deny Plaintiff full and equal access.
17 24. Defendants have failed to maintain in working and useable conditions those
18 features required to provide ready access to persons with disabilities.
19 25. All of barriers identified above are easily removed without much difficulty or
20 expense. They are the types of barriers identified by the Department of Justice for attention

21 and these barriers are readily achievable to remove. However, should full compliance not

22 be readily achievable, there are numerous alternative accommodations that could be made
to provide a greater level of access than presently exists.
23
26. Given the obvious and blatant nature of the barriers and violations alleged herein,
24
Plaintiff alleges that defendants have failed to take the necessary steps to ensure removal
25
of non-compliant architectural barriers as required by 42 U.S.C. § 12182(2)(A)(iv) and on
26
information and belief, alleges that there are other violations and barriers on the site that
27
relate to his disability. Plaintiff will amend the complaint to provide proper notice regarding
28
the scope of this lawsuit once he conducts a site inspection. Plaintiff seeks to have all

Verified Complaint
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0363D848-19B3-467E-8CBC-02D094CDCDC2

1 barriers related to his disability remedied. See Doran v. 7-Eleven, 524 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir.
2008) (holding that once a plaintiff encounters one barrier at a site, he can sue to have all
2
barriers that relate to his disability removed regardless of whether he personally
3
encountered them).
4
27. As the ADA has existed since 1990, and the facility is still non-compliant, Plaintiff
5
alleges the above conditions are the result of either a policy failure or systematic negligence
6
such that only regular audits of the facility architecture and policies will ensure future
7
compliance.
8
28. Plaintiff is currently deterred from returning to the Store due to knowledge of the
9 existing barriers and uncertainty about the existence of yet other barriers on the site. If the
10 barriers are not removed, Plaintiff will face unlawful and discriminatory barriers again.
11 Plaintiff will return to the Store after the conclusion of the case to avail himself of its
12 benefits and to confirm compliance with the disability access laws once it is represented to
13 him the Store and its facilities are accessible.
14
15 CCP § 425.50 Compliance Statements:

16 29. Compliance testing is recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court and civil rights

17 advocates as a necessary method of enforcing civil rights laws.
30. Pursuant to CCP § 425.50(a)(4)(i) Plaintiff states they qualify as a high frequency
18
litigant as defined by CCP § 425.55. Plaintiff is an ADA advocate and tester as that term is
19
understood and protected under federal law. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S.
20
363 (1982); C.R. Educ. & Enf’t Ctr. v. Hosp. Properties Tr., 867 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir.
21
2017).
22
31. Pursuant to CCP § 425.50(a)(4)(ii), Plaintiff states in the year preceding the drafting
23
of this complaint they filed approximately 671 lawsuits alleging violations of construction-
24 related accessibility standards.
25 32. Pursuant to CCP § 425.50(a)(4)(iii), Plaintiff states on the date alleged above,
26 Plaintiff was in the area for shopping. Plaintiff was in the area around the business engaged
27 in constitutionally protected tester activities visiting businesses in the same manner as a
28 potential customer to confirm their compliance with state and federal laws. Plaintiff’s

Verified Complaint
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0363D848-19B3-467E-8CBC-02D094CDCDC2

1 encounter with the above listed conditions resulted in a denial of full and equal access
under the ADA.
2
33. Pursuant to CCP § 425.50(a)(4)(iv), Plaintiff states Plaintiff was in the area for
3
shopping and Plaintiff visited the subject business for the purpose of testing facility
4
compliance with accessibility laws with the intention to use the Benefits of the facility in
5
the same manner as a customer.
6
34. At the conclusion of this suit and after being informed that the barriers complained
7
of have been removed, in furtherance of Plaintiff’s tester motivations, Plaintiff intends to
8
return to the business to confirm accessibility of the above conditions.
9
10 I. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
11 (On behalf of Plaintiff and against all Defendants.) Cal. Civ. Code § 51-53.
12 35. Plaintiff re-pleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth again herein,
13 the allegations contained in all prior paragraphs of this complaint.

14 36. Under the ADA, it is an act of discrimination to fail to ensure that the privileges,

15 advantages, accommodations, facilities, goods and services of any place of public
accommodation are offered on a full and equal basis by anyone who owns, leases, or
16
operates a place of public accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Discrimination is
17
defined, inter alia, as follows:
18
a. A failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or
19
procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford goods, services,
20
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with
21
disabilities, unless the accommodation would work a fundamental alteration
22
of those services and facilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).
23 b. A failure to remove architectural barriers where such removal is readily
24 achievable. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). Barriers are defined by
25 reference to the ADA Standards.
26 c. A failure to make alterations in such a manner that, to the maximum extent
27 feasible, the altered portions of the facility are readily accessible to and
28 usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use

Verified Complaint
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0363D848-19B3-467E-8CBC-02D094CDCDC2

1 wheelchairs or to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible, the path of
travel to the altered area and the bathrooms, telephones, and drinking
2
fountains serving the altered area, are readily accessible to and usable by
3
individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2).
4
37. When a business provides door hardware, it must provide accessible door hardware.
5
38. Here, accessible door hardware was not provided in conformance with the ADA
6
Standards.
7
39. When a business provides path of travel, it must provide accessible path of travel.
8
40. Here, accessible path of travel was not provided in conformance with the ADA
9 Standards.
10 41. The Safe Harbor provisions of the 2010 Standards are not applicable here because
11 the conditions challenged in this lawsuit do not comply with the 1991 Standards.
12 42. A public accommodation must maintain in operable working condition those
13 features of its facilities and equipment that are required to be readily accessible to and
14 usable by persons with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 36.211(a).
15 43. Here, the failure to ensure that accessible facilities were available and ready to be

16 used by Plaintiff is a violation of the law.

17 44. The Unruh Act provides that any violation of the ADA is a violation of the Unruh
Act. Cal. Civ. Code, § 51(f).
18
45. Defendants' acts and omissions, as herein alleged, have violated the Unruh Act by,
19
inter alia, denying, or aiding, or inciting the denial of, Plaintiff’s rights to full and equal
20
use of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services offered.
21
46. Because the violation of the ADA resulted in a denial of full and equal access to
22
Plaintiff, Defendants are also each responsible for statutory damages, i.e., a civil penalty.
23
Civ. Code § 55.56(a)-(c).
24
25 II. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
26 DISABLED PERSONS ACT
27 (On behalf of Plaintiff and against all Defendants.) Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1.
28 47. Plaintiff repleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth again herein,

Verified Complaint
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0363D848-19B3-467E-8CBC-02D094CDCDC2

1 the allegations contained in all prior paragraphs of this complaint. The California Disabled
Persons Act (“CDPA”) guarantees, inter alia, that persons with disabilities are entitled to
2
full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business
3
establishments of every kind whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the State of
4
California. Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1.
5
48. The CDPA provides that any violation of the ADA is a violation of the CDPA. Cal.
6
Civ. Code, § 54.1(d).
7
49. Defendants' acts and omissions, as herein alleged, have violated the CDPA by, inter
8
alia, denying, or aiding, or inciting the denial of, Plaintiff’s rights to full and equal use of
9 the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services offered.
10 50. Because the violation of the ADA resulted in a denial of full and equal access to
11 Plaintiff, Defendants are also each responsible for statutory damages, i.e., a civil penalty.
12 Cal. Civ. Code § 54.3.
13
14 PRAYER:
15 Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that this Court award damages and provide relief as

16 follows:

17 1. For injunctive relief, compelling Defendants to remove all presently existing
architectural barriers as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh
18
Civil Rights Act.2
19
2. For injunctive relief requiring that Defendants obtain biennial Certified Access
20
Specialist (“CASp”) architectural inspections of the subject facility to verify on-going
21
ADA compliance and follow those inspection’s recommendations of all readily achievable
22
barrier removal.
23
3. For injunctive relief requiring implementation of accessibility policies and
24 requiring annual employee training on providing full and equal access to clients or
25 customers with disabilities.
26 4. For injunctive relief, prohibiting Defendants from violating the provisions of the
27 Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
28
2
Plaintiff is not invoking section 55 of the California Civil Code and is not seeking injunctive relief under the Disabled Persons Act at all.

Verified Complaint
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0363D848-19B3-467E-8CBC-02D094CDCDC2

1 5. Damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act or California Disabled Persons Act,
which provide for up to treble actual damages and a statutory minimum of $4,000 or $1,000
2
respectively per violation of each Act. While Plaintiff may prevail on each act individually,
3
Plaintiff only seeks monetary recovery under whichever act results in the greatest damages,
4
to be determined at trial.
5
6. Reasonable attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit, pursuant to Cal. Civ.
6
Code § 52 and or § 54.1.
7
8
Dated: May 9, 2024 THE REDDY LAW FIRM LLC
9
10
A). .tdh.... “4
£0. bh
11 By: ______________________
12 Prathima Reddy Price, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Verified Complaint
DocuSign Envelope ID: 0363D848-19B3-467E-8CBC-02D094CDCDC2

1 VERIFICATION
I am a party to this action, and I have read the complaint titled Garcia v. 2165 North Main
2
St Holdings LLC, et al. and know its content. The facts stated in the complaint are true
3
and based on my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated on information and
4
belief, and as to those matters, I believe them true.
5
6
I declare penalty under perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
7
is true and correct.
8
9 DocuSigned by:

5/10/2024 ( Pande Gavun
10 Dated: ______________ By: __________________
11 Orlando Garcia
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Verified Complaint

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Document for 15302313

Preview

Case Info

Parties

Document for 15302313

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties