What is a Confidential CASp Report?

Useful Rulings on Confidential CASp Report

Recent Rulings on Confidential CASp Report

HARTZ VS EASTVALE GATEWAY I, LLC

Court will take judicial notice of the Complaint and the CASp Report; otherwise, deny Defendants Request for Judicial Notice as only relevant material is subject to judicial notice and the remainder of Defendant’s proffered documents do not aid in the resolution of the demurrer or motion to strike. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted as to the Kohler v. Presidio Int’l, Inc. (C.D.

  • Hearing

VASILE PROPERTIES AIRPORT PLAZA, LLA VS. CAROLINE LAFAURIE, EQUELECUA CARIBBEAN CUISENE,LLA

Code, § 1938 states: “(a) A commercial property owner or lessor shall state on every lease form or rental agreement executed on or after January 1, 2017, whether or not the subject premises have undergone inspection by a Certified Access Specialist (CASp).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

STOUT VS JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA [EFILE]

Request No. 6 Request No. 6 seeks "non- CASp inspections" conducted at WRDC to determine its compliance with the "Disability Accessibility Laws" during all times which GEO has leased, operated and/or managed the facility. Based on the Opposition and Reply, it appears that the parties have met and conferred and plaintiff has agreed to limit the time period for the request from January 4, 2016 to the present.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STOUT VS JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA [EFILE]

Request No. 6 Request No. 6 seeks "non- CASp inspections" conducted at WRDC to determine its compliance with the "Disability Accessibility Laws" during all times which GEO has leased, operated and/or managed the facility. Based on the Opposition and Reply, it appears that the parties have met and conferred and plaintiff has agreed to limit the time period for the request from January 4, 2016 to the present.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

VASILE PROPERTIES AIRPORT PLAZA, LLC; A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS MOGES BELAYNHE WONDEMTEKA

On January 30, 2019, Plaintiff procured a Certified Access Specialist inspector to conduct an inspection of the Premises. (Vasile Decl. ¶ 20.) The inspector identified 16 ADA and/or CBC violations existing on the Premises primarily attributed to the unauthorized modifications made by Defendant. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

LORENZO MARTINEZ VS LONG BELLFLOWER LLC

Defendant contends that the site has been inspected by a Certified Access Specialist (“CASp”) and that an inspection report by a CASp relating to the site has been issued.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

ALFRED PIRJANIANS, ET AL. V. WINDSOR CAPITAL GROUP, INC.

’” ● “On September 30, 2015, a certified access specialist (‘CASp’), Paul A Joelson, conducted an Accessibility Compliance Audit and issued a report (‘REPORT’), which states that the installation of wall-mounted folding shower seat in the guestroom number 104 ‘is not compliant . . . with California Building Code (‘CBC’), and expressly warns [defendant] that in his experience ‘this has been the cause of numerous accidents and injuries.

  • Hearing

JOSEPH SALATINO VS TARGET CORPORATION

Defendant provides the Declaration of Kim Blackseth, who is an expert in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as a Certified Access Specialist with the State of California. (Blackseth Decl., at ¶ 3.) However, this declaration focuses on the fact that the Plaintiff should have used the ADA compliant access system rather than the sloped sidewalk entrance. (Id. at ¶¶10-11.) The only evidence Defendant provides relating to the obviousness of the danger of the sloped sidewalk is Mr.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALFRED PIRJANIANS, ET AL. V. WINDSOR CAPITAL GROUP, INC.

Request No. 2 from the deposition notice is: “IDENTIFY and produce any and all COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO inspections of the HOTEL between DEFENDANT and a Certified Access Specialist (as defined in California Civil Code section 55.52. (3)).” The response to Request No. 2 is: “Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds it is impermissibly overbroad as to time; it fails to indicate a specific, reasonable, and applicable time period. Furthermore, this request is overbroad as to scope.

  • Hearing

GERALD CROSBY VS CCMH MARINA LLC

The definition in question was initially enacted as part of a bill requiring licensed architects to complete disability access coursework to renew their licenses, and creating the certified access specialist system, pursuant to which specialists could inspect site and structures to assess “barrier removal”. (Id.; see also Civ. Code § 55.53 and Bus. & Prof. Code § 5600(d), all enacted as part of Stats.2008, c. 549 (S.B. 1608).) In short, a common sense reading of Civ.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CROSBY, GERALD VS XLD CENTURY LLC

The definition in question was initially enacted as part of a bill requiring licensed architects to complete disability access coursework to renew their licenses, and creating the certified access specialist system, pursuant to which specialists could inspect site and structures to assess “barrier removal”. (Id.; see also Civ. Code § 55.53 and Bus. & Prof. Code § 5600(d), all enacted as part of Stats.2008, c. 549 (S.B. 1608).) In short, a common sense reading of Civ.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LANGER, CHRIS VS 235 S. LA CIENEGA BLVD. ASSOCIATES,

Defendant further argues that Plaintiff admitted that the parking was in compliance with the CASp report within sixty days of the service of that complaint. (DSF 21.) Defendant proffers the undisputed fact that Plaintiff also admits that the alleged barriers did not exist as of the date that the instant Complaint was filed, and further admits that the alleged barriers were corrected no later than April 30, 2014. (DSF 17,21.)

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LANGER, CHRIS VS 235 S. LA CIENEGA BLVD. ASSOCIATES,

Defendant further argues that Plaintiff admitted that the parking was in compliance with the CASp report within sixty days of the service of that complaint. (DSF 21.) Defendant proffers the undisputed fact that Plaintiff also admits that the alleged barriers did not exist as of the date that the instant Complaint was filed, and further admits that the alleged barriers were corrected no later than April 30, 2014. (DSF 17,21.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BEST, ROBERT VS DONUTS EXPRESS

Defendant asserts that the site has been inspected by a Certified Access Specialist (“CASp”) and that an inspection report by the CASp has been issued. Defendant submits photographs evidencing the correction of the alleged violations giving rise to the construction-related claims. The photographs depict the sidewalk and handicapped parking signs in front of Donut Express and seem to indicate accessibility.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NAVARRO, ANTHONY VS YOGURT, MENCHIES FROZEN

Defendant asserts that the site has been inspected by a Certified Access Specialist (“CASp”) and that an inspection report by the CASp has been issued, a copy of which is attached to the application. Defendant has noticed an Early Evaluation Conference for July 26, 2017 in connection with its request. Legal Standard Under Cal. Civ.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GABRIELA CABRERA VS. EINSTEIN AND NOAH CORP.

(j) Nothing in this part shall be deemed to make any inspection report, opinion, statement, or other finding or conclusion of a CASp binding on the court, or to abrogate in any manner the ultimate authority of the court to make all appropriate findings of fact and law. The CASp inspection report and any opinion, statement, finding, or conclusion therein shall be given the weight the trier of fact finds that it deserves.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GABRIELA CABRERA VS. EINSTEIN AND NOAH CORP.

(j) Nothing in this part shall be deemed to make any inspection report, opinion, statement, or other finding or conclusion of a CASp binding on the court, or to abrogate in any manner the ultimate authority of the court to make all appropriate findings of fact and law. The CASp inspection report and any opinion, statement, finding, or conclusion therein shall be given the weight the trier of fact finds that it deserves.

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LEVINSON V. KHARAZI

Motions: (1) By Defendants Millennium Acquisitions, LLC, Timeless Investments, Inc., Chase, Inc., and Zlfred’s Inc., for attorney’s fees; (2) By Defendants H. Ty Kharazi and R.W. Yarra, APLC for attorney’s fees; (3) By Defendant Robert Shiralian for attorney’s fees; (4) By Defendants Millennium Acquisitions, LLC, Timeless Investments,...

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MILLENNIUM ACQUISITIONS, LLC V. LEVINSON, ET AL.

Motion: By Plaintiff to stay execution of order to pay attorney’s fees. Tentative Ruling: To deny the motion for an “automatic stay.” This ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ ability to prepare an undertaking or other security pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 917.1 and/or 995.710. The request for a temporary stay for ten days...

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MILLENNIUM ACQUISITIONS, LLC V. LEVINSON

Motion: By Defendants Levinson and West Coast CASp and ADA Services, Inc. for attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §425.15, subdivision (c). Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion for attorney’s fees. The Court awards $13,749.00 in fees. Explanation: In any action subject to [a special motion to strike], a prevailing defendant . . . shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs." (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

1

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.