Complaint,Petition: NICOLE SUSANNE BAYLEY VS DYNASTY COACHWORK INTERNATIONAL, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

On May 10, 2024 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Bayley Nicole Susanne, and Dynasty Coachwork International Inc. A California Corporation, for Civil Rights/Discrimination (General Jurisdiction) in the District Court of Los Angeles County.

Preview
1 SEABOCK PRICE APC
Dennis Price SBN 279082
2 Sara Johnson SBN 346263
117 E. Colorado Blvd., Ste. 600
3 Pasadena, California 91105
Phone: 323-616-0490
4 sara@seabockprice.com

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff

7
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9
Nicole Susanne Bayley, Case Number:
10
Plaintiff,
I Seabock / Price I

11 Verified Complaint for Damages and
v. Injunctive Relief for Violations of:
12 Americans with Disabilities Act, Unruh
Civil Rights Act
13
Dynasty Coachwork International, Inc.,
14 a California Corporation; and Does 1-10
15

16
Defendant(s).
17

18
19

28
1
Complaint, Dynasty Coachwork International
Doc ID: 2bc9512bc9997c2802d82af6136ecbfdd170ac6e
1 Plaintiff Nicole Susanne Bayley alleges the following upon information and belief based upon
2 investigation of counsel, except as to her own acts, which she alleges upon personal knowledge:

3
INTRODUCTION
4

5 1. Signed into law on July 26, 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act was a landmark piece

6 of legislation that promised equal access to disabled individuals. Hailed as a long overdue

7 “independence day” by President George H.W. Bush at the time of signing, the law recognized that

8 disabled Americans had been overlooked by prior civil rights laws and were entitled to independence

9 and dignity in all aspects of society.

10 2. Recognizing that the ADA lacked sufficient remedies, the State of California promptly
I Seabock / Price I

11 amended the Unruh Civil Rights Act to ensure those who are denied equal rights under the ADA

12 have sufficient motivation and remedies to enforce the law.

13 3. However, more than 30 years later, California still has businesses in flagrant violation of the

14 law. These are not just small or “technical” violations but actual barriers to access. What amounts

15 to a minor or invisible difference to those without a disability may cause difficulties, discomfort,

16 embarrassment, or outright injury to those with disabilities.

17 4. Plaintiff is a disabled individual and a member of a protected class of individuals guaranteed

18 rights under state and federal laws.
19 5. Plaintiff visited the Shopping Center facility located at 134 N. Gaffey Street, San Pedro, CA

20 90731, in December 2023 and encountered barriers to access.

21 6. Plaintiff brings this action against Dynasty Coachwork International, Inc. and Does 1-10

22 (“Defendant”) for failure to design, maintain, construct, and operate the Shopping Center facility

23 (“Shopping Center”) in compliance with applicable accessibility laws.

28
2
Complaint, Dynasty Coachwork International
Doc ID: 2bc9512bc9997c2802d82af6136ecbfdd170ac6e
1 PARTIES

2
7. Plaintiff, at all times relevant and as alleged herein, is a resident of California, County of Los
3
Angeles.
4
8. Defendant Dynasty Coachwork International, Inc. owned the real property located at or
5
about 134 N. Gaffey Street, San Pedro, CA 90731, in December 2023.
6
9. Defendant Dynasty Coachwork International, Inc. owns the real property located at or about
7
134 N. Gaffey Street, San Pedro, CA 90731, currently.
8
10. Does 1-10 owned, leased, or operated the place of accommodation located at or about
9
134 N. Gaffey Street, San Pedro, CA 90731, in December 2023.
10
11. Does 1-10 own, lease, or operate the place of accommodation located at or about
I Seabock / Price I

11
134 N. Gaffey Street, San Pedro, CA 90731 currently.
12
12. Every landlord, tenant, owner, or operator of a place of public accommodation is separately
13
charged with compliance with the ADA. 28 CFR § 36.201(b). Liability for noncompliance persists
14
regardless of any contractual apportionment of responsibility between them. Botosan v. Paul McNally
15
Realty, 216 F.3d 827, 833-34 (9th Cir. 2000).
16
13. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant had and continues to have an ongoing
17
obligation to assess, identify, and remove all barriers to access where readily achievable to do so and
18
to implement the most accessible alternative when full compliance is not readily achievable.
19
14. Plaintiff does not know the true names of all Defendants, their business capacities, their
20
ownership connection to the property and business, or their relative responsibilities in causing the
21
access violations herein complained of and alleges a joint venture and common enterprise by all such
22
defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the defendants herein is responsible in
23
some capacity for the events herein alleged or is a necessary party for obtaining appropriate relief.
24
Plaintiff will seek leave to amend when the true names, capacities, connections, and responsibilities
25
of the defendants are ascertained.
26

28
3
Complaint, Dynasty Coachwork International
Doc ID: 2bc9512bc9997c2802d82af6136ecbfdd170ac6e
1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2
15. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter as a court of general jurisdiction
3
and as a result of the pursuit of injunctive relief remedies that are only available in the Unlimited
4
Civil division of the Superior Court of California. Cal. Civ. P. § 580(b)(2).
5
16. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because they conducted and continue to
6
conduct business in the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
7
17. Venue is proper in the County of Los Angeles as the challenged conduct occurred in that
8
county and is also the Defendant’s place of business and location of the place of public
9
accommodation.
10
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
I Seabock / Price I

12 18. Plaintiff suffers from a degenerative disease that manifests in arthritis throughout her body.
13 She uses a walker and a wheelchair for mobility and is a member of a protected class of individuals

14 guaranteed rights under state and federal law.

15 19. The Shopping Center is a facility open to the public, a place of public accommodation, and a
16 business establishment as those terms are understood under the Americans with Disabilities Act and

17 Unruh Civil Rights Act.

18 20. Plaintiff went to the Shopping Center on December 5, 2023, and several other dates, with the
19 intention to avail herself of its goods, services, privileges, advantages, or accommodations

20 (“Amenities”). Specifically, Plaintiff is a regular customer of the Pirate Town dispensary, a business

21 she relies on for pain management.

22 21. Unfortunately, on the date of Plaintiff’s visit, the Shopping Center failed to comply with ADA
23 and California standards as they relate to wheelchair users like the Plaintiff.

24 22. Plaintiff encountered parking barriers on December 5, 2023.
25 23. Accessible parking provides disabled individuals safe access to the affiliated businesses.
26 Accessible parking requires meeting both the design specifications, as well as the required quantity

27 to ensure access. Additionally, mandatory signage removes ambiguity about the exclusive use of the

28
4
Complaint, Dynasty Coachwork International
Doc ID: 2bc9512bc9997c2802d82af6136ecbfdd170ac6e
1 spaces and ensures that law enforcement will be able to police unauthorized use of the spaces. These

2 spaces—when properly designed and described—deter unauthorized individuals from parking in or

3 blocking access to the parking space and help provide safety and peace of mind to the individuals

4 who benefit from their use.

5 24. Signage conforming with these defined standards is significant. Lack of strict compliance can
6 render the exclusive use of the space unenforceable, preventing law enforcement from towing away

7 or ticketing people who illegally use these spaces or block in individuals who are properly using them.

8 25. In this case, although parking is provided to patrons, there is an insufficient number of
9 compliant accessible handicapped parking spaces. Whether through neglect, apathy, or otherwise,

10 the defendant has permitted the handicapped parking spaces and signage to be maintained
I Seabock / Price I

11 incorrectly.

12 26. In this lot, there are a total of 36 spaces and two ostensibly accessible parking spaces:
13 a. There is one space located in front of the Donut shop lacking required signage
14 designating the space as accessible. Although this space has a sign mounted on the
15 wall in front of the space, this sign is covered with stickers and graffiti, making it
16 illegible. In fact, Plaintiff was unaware that this space was being held out as a
17 designated accessible space upon first glance due to the number of stickers covering
18 the sign. Additionally, this space has an excessive slope in the access aisle.
19 b. There is one space located in front of 7-Eleven that appears to meet accessible space
20 requirements, although the space does not have the required signage that indicates that
21 the space is van-accessible. This space is the only space in the entire facility that is fully
22 accessible. Unfortunately, as Plaintiff has observed on numerous visits, it is seldom
23 available due to policy failures by the Shopping Center detailed further below.
24 27. The parking facility must comply with both the scoping and design requirements mandated

25 by state and federal law. However, the parking facility at the Shopping Center contains only one

26 ostensibly accessible space. For a lot of this size, there should be at least two accessible spaces

28
5
Complaint, Dynasty Coachwork International
Doc ID: 2bc9512bc9997c2802d82af6136ecbfdd170ac6e
1 available, with the first space being a van-accessible space. Additionally, these spaces must be

2 maintained as accessible.

3 28. On information and belief, the Shopping Center does not have effective policies for enforcing
exclusive use of the accessible parking spaces and access aisles. This is further complicated as the
4
required tow-away signs that are posted at the entrances to the parking lot are so defaced with stickers
5
and graffiti that they are completely illegible, thereby making enforcement of any accessible spaces
6
nearly impossible.
7
29. As previously noted, this continues on the signage on one of the ostensibly compliant spaces,
8
which is also covered in stickers and graffiti, leaving significant doubt if law enforcement could even
9 police the exclusive use of the space.

10 30. On her visit, Plaintiff found both ostensibly accessible spaces taken. In addition, there was a
I Seabock / Price I

11 vehicle parked in the access aisle of the space in front of 7-Eleven, another vehicle parked partially

12 blocking the access aisle of the ostensibly accessible space in front of the Donut Shop, and there were

13 a number of vehicles illegally parked in various places around the lot, including partially blocking

14 two of the three entrances to the Shopping Center.

15 31. As a result of the Shopping Center’s failure to provide a sufficient quantity of compliant

16 accessible spaces, and with the lone accessible space and access aisle occupied on her visit, Plaintiff

17 was forced to park two blocks away on the street, with difficulty as this required her to walk the two

18 blocks back to the Shopping Center using her walker.
19 32. This was not an isolated incident. Plaintiff has personally encountered—and complained—

20 about this condition. Further, investigations over multiple months demonstrated that misuse of these

21 spaces is routine. During peak usage, when these spaces are most important, these spaces are

22 consistently misused by patrons without placards and impunity.

23 33. Defendant has failed to provide and/or maintain in working and useable condition those

24 features required to provide ready access to persons with disabilities.

25 34. Despite the above, Plaintiff overcame the difficulties presented to her and made a purchase at

26 the Shopping Center.

28
6
Complaint, Dynasty Coachwork International
Doc ID: 2bc9512bc9997c2802d82af6136ecbfdd170ac6e
1 35. On information and belief, the above conditions currently exist or the policies that allowed
2 them to occur have not been changed.

3 36. These above barriers relate to and impact the Plaintiff’s disability. Plaintiff personally
4 encountered these barriers.

5 37. Plaintiff seeks the removal of all barriers to access pertaining to her disability.
6 38. All of the barriers identified above are easily removed without much difficulty or expense.
7 They are the types of barriers that patrons should expect to have been removed in the more than

8 thirty years since the ADA became law and should be presumed readily achievable due to ease of

9 removal. However, should full compliance not be readily achievable, there are numerous alternative

10 accommodations that could be made to provide a greater level of access than presently exists.
I Seabock / Price I

11 39. Plaintiff intends to return to the business in the future and believes it is likely that other barriers
12 to her patronage exist, given the obvious barriers she encountered. During litigation, Plaintiff will

13 thoroughly investigate the property and amend the complaint to provide the full scope of remediation

14 required. Plaintiff seeks to have all barriers related to her disability removed. See Doran v. 7-Eleven,

15 524 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2008); Thurston v. Midvale Corp., 39 Cal. App. 5th 634, 653–54 (2019) (holding

16 that once a plaintiff encounters one barrier at a site, they can sue to have all barriers that relate to

17 their disability removed regardless of whether they personally encountered them).

18 40. As the ADA has existed since 1990, Plaintiff alleges the above conditions were the result of
19 either a policy failure or systematic negligence such that only policy modifications and regular future

20 audits of the facility and policy modifications can ensure future compliance.

21
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 425.50 COMPLIANCE STATEMENTS
22

23 41. In 2015, California implemented Cal. Code Civ. P. § 425.55(b), defining some ADA plaintiffs

24 as “high-frequency litigants” and requiring certain disclosures by some ADA plaintiffs. Plaintiff does

25 not meet the criteria described in this section.

28
7
Complaint, Dynasty Coachwork International
Doc ID: 2bc9512bc9997c2802d82af6136ecbfdd170ac6e
1 I. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
2
Title 42 United States Code §§ 12101-12189
3 (On behalf of Plaintiff and against all Defendants)
4
42. Plaintiff re-pleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth again herein, the
5
allegations contained in all prior paragraphs of this complaint.
6
43. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, it is an act of discrimination to fail to ensure that
7
the privileges, advantages, accommodations, facilities, goods and services of any place of public
8
accommodation are offered on a full and equal basis by anyone who owns, leases, or operates a place
9
of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Discrimination is defined there as follows:
10
44. A failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such
I Seabock / Price I

11
modifications are necessary to afford goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
12
accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the accommodation would work a
13
fundamental alteration of those services and facilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).
14
45. A failure to remove architectural barriers where such removal is readily achievable. 42 U.S.C.
15
§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). Barriers may be defined by failure to comply with the ADA Standards.
16
46. Where such barrier removal is not readily achievable, the failure to make such goods, services,
17
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations available through alternative, readily
18
achievable, methods.
19
47. A failure to make alterations in such a manner that, to the maximum extent feasible, the
20
altered portions of the facility are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities,
21
including individuals who use wheelchairs or to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible, the
22
path of travel to the altered area and the bathrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the
23
altered area are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. §
24
12183(a)(2).
25

28
8
Complaint, Dynasty Coachwork International
Doc ID: 2bc9512bc9997c2802d82af6136ecbfdd170ac6e
1 48. All Amenities provided by a business must comply with applicable standards, typically the
2 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design (“ADASAD”) or the California Building Code.

3 (“CBC”).

4 49. When a business provides parking, it must provide accessible parking. ADASAD Chapter 2
5 & 5; 2004; 1991 ADAAG Chapter 4.6.

6 50. Here, despite offering parking, accessible parking has not been provided in conformance with
7 the ADA Standards.

8 51. In addition to offering accessible Amenities, a public accommodation must maintain in
9 operable working condition those features of its facilities and equipment that are required to be

10 readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 36.211(a). This includes
I Seabock / Price I

11 ensuring that patrons who are not entitled to the use of accessible features are ushered away to keep

12 those features available for those who need them. Fortyune v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F. 3d 1075

13 (9th Cir. 2004).

14 52. The Safe Harbor provisions of the 2010 Standards are not applicable here because the
15 conditions challenged in this lawsuit also do not comply with the 1991 Standards. 28 CFR §

16 35.151(b)(4)(ii)(C). Further, there is no Safe Harbor for a failure to maintain accessible features.

17 53. Here, the failure to ensure that accessible facilities were available and ready to be used by the
18 plaintiff is a violation of the law.
19
II. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
20 VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
21 California Civil Code §§ 51-53
(On behalf of Plaintiff and against all Defendants)
22

23 54. Plaintiff re-pleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth again herein, the
24 allegations contained in all prior paragraphs of this complaint.

25 55. The Unruh Civil Rights Act (“UCRA”) guarantees, among other things, that persons with
26 disabilities are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or

28
9
Complaint, Dynasty Coachwork International
Doc ID: 2bc9512bc9997c2802d82af6136ecbfdd170ac6e
1 services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the State of

2 California. Cal. Civ. Code §51(b).

3 56. The UCRA provides that any violation of the ADA is a violation of the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ.
4 Code § 51(f).

5 57. Defendants’ acts and omissions, as herein alleged, have violated the UCRA by, among other
6 things, denying, or aiding, or inciting the denial of, Plaintiff’s rights to full and equal use of the

7 accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services offered.

8 58. A defendant’s liability for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act entitles a plaintiff to actual
9 damages, as well as treble actual damages or an amount no less than the minimum statutory penalty

10 prescribed by law, for each occasion in which the plaintiff was denied full and equal access. Cal. Civ.
I Seabock / Price I

11 Code §§ 52(a); 55.56.

12
PRAYER
13

14 In light of the above, Plaintiff prays that this Court award damages and provide relief as follows:

15 59. A determination that Defendant is liable for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act,

16 and Unruh Civil Rights Act.

17 60. For permanent injunctive relief, compelling Defendant to remove all presently existing

18 architectural barriers as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights
19 Act within 90 days of judgment or another date certain determined to be just by the Court. This shall

20 include, but not be limited to, the following barriers encountered by the plaintiff:

21 a. Installation and maintenance of compliant parking spaces, including compliant access

22 aisles that are clearly delineated and not blocked by vehicles or any other item that will

23 limit the use of the space and access aisle in the manner for which it is intended.

24 b. Installation and maintenance of all necessary signage that will enable enforcement of

25 applicable laws against individuals improperly parking in the designated parking space

26 or access aisle.

28
10
Complaint, Dynasty Coachwork International
Doc ID: 2bc9512bc9997c2802d82af6136ecbfdd170ac6e
1 61. To the extent that complete removal of all presently existing architectural barriers is not
2 readily achievable, permanent injunctive relief compelling Defendants to make those Amenities

3 available through alternative methods.

4 62. For injunctive relief requiring that Defendants obtain biennial Certified Access Specialist
5 (“CASp”) architectural inspections of the subject facility to verify ongoing ADA compliance and to

6 follow those inspections’ recommendations of all readily achievable barrier removal. The first

7 inspection shall occur within 90 days of judgment or another date certain determined to be just by

8 the Court.

9 63. For injunctive relief requiring implementation of accessibility policies and requiring annual
10 employee training on providing full and equal access to clients or customers with disabilities. This
I Seabock / Price I

11 shall be implemented within 90 days of judgment or another date certain determined to be just by

12 the Court. These policies shall ensure that the Shopping Center maintains enforcement policies for

13 misuse of accessible parking, as well as maintains all required signage in a legible and compliant

14 manner to allow proper law enforcement of exclusive use spaces.

15 64. For actual damages subject to proof under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
16 65. For treble actual damages, or in no case an amount less than the statutory minimum damages
17 prescribed by statute for each occasion Plaintiff was denied full and equal access.

18 66. Reasonable attorney fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205
19 and Cal. Civ. Code § 52.

21 Date: May 10, 2024 SEABOCK PRICE APC
22

23 ______________________________________

24 Sara Johnson
Attorney for Plaintiff
25

28
11
Complaint, Dynasty Coachwork International
Doc ID: 2bc9512bc9997c2802d82af6136ecbfdd170ac6e
Complaint Verification - Dynasty Coachwork International; Pirate Town

I, Nicole Susanne Bayley am the Plaintiff bringing the attached complaint. I have reviewed the
document. I believe all of the allegations to which I have personal knowledge are true. I believe
all the allegations that I do not have personal knowledge of to be true based on information
and/or evidence.

05 / 10 / 2024
Executed on __________________, at San Pedro County, California.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

____________________________
Nicole Susanne Bayley
Plaintiff

Doc ID: 2bc9512bc9997c2802d82af6136ecbfdd170ac6e
1

Case Info

Judge

Mark C. Kim Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

May 10, 2024

Case Filing Date

May 10, 2024

County

Parties

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