No Value: ROY MASON vs. TAQUERIA LA CUMBRE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al

On September 06, 2022 a No Value was filed involving a dispute between Mason, Roy, and Does 1 To 100, Inclusive, Duran, Edward, Taqueria La Cumbre, Inc., A California Corporation, for (08) Unlimited Civil Rights in the District Court of San Mateo County.

Preview
Ara Sahelian, Esq., [CBN 169257]
SAHELIAN LAW OFFICES
25108 Marguerite Pkwy, Ste A
Mission Viejo, CA 92692
949. 859. 9200
e-mail: contact@sahelianlaw.com
Attorneys for Taqueria La Cumbre, Inc.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Southern Branch

CASE NO.: 22-CIV-03636
Roy Mason, The Honorable V. Raymond Swope

Plaintiff,
SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS TO
vs.
REPLY BRIEF
Taqueria La Cumbre, Inc.,

Defendants,

-1-
Due to the immensity of the fraud perpetrated on the Court by Mr. Andrews,
and the sizable number of exhibits involved, the Defense was unable to organize all
in time to file concurrently with the Reply Brief.
The Court will hopefully find the compilation of Exhibits detailed and well
organized.
Lastly, Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the verified Complaint for Mason
v. Don Pollo Grilled Chicken, Case No. 37-2022-00019001-CL-CR-CTL, San
Diego Superior Court. This refers to Section B(2) on page 3 of the reply brief, and
Exhibit J are true and correct copies of a compilation of 8 verified Complaints for
eateries that Plaintiff alleges to have visited in the single day, May 6, 2022. This
refers to Section B(3) on page 4 of the reply brief.

Dated: 4/2/24
SAHELIAN LAW OFFICES

___________________________
Ara Sahelian, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant
Taqueria La Cumbre, Inc.

-2-
1 Ara Sahelian, Esq., [CBN 169257]
SAHELIAN LAW OFFICES
2 25108 Marguerite pkwy, Ste A
3 Mission Viejo, CA 92692
949. 859. 9200
4
e-mail: contact@sahelianlaw.com
5
6 Attorneys for Taqueria La Cumbre, Inc.
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
9
Southern Branch
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Roy Mason CASE NO.: 22-CIV-03636
18
Plaintiff,
19 The Honorable V. Raymond Swope
20
vs.
Taqueria La Cumbre, Inc. Dpt, 23, Courtroom 8A
21
22 Defendant.
23 EXHIBITS
24
25
26
27
28

EXHIBITS - Page 1 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
EXHIBIT D
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2246 EXHIBITS - Page 12 -
ALBERT R SONNTAG, ESQ, SBN:137284
ATTORNEY AT LAW
306-N WEST EL NORTE PARKWAY, SUITE 204
ESCONDIDO, CA 92026
Tel: (760) 658-0444
e-mail: office.albertrsonntag@gmail.corn
Attorney for Plaintiff, ROY MASON

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN DIEGO JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CENTRAL DISTRICT

ROY MASON ) Case No.:
)
12 ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiff, RE: VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS ON
)
13 vs. ) BASIS OF DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC
) ACCOMMODATIONS
DON POLLO GRILLED CHICKEN AND )
) ACTION SUBJECT TO THE
MEXICAN CUISINE, MARIO A VAZQUEZ SUPPLEMENTAL FEE IN GOVERNMENT
)
CELIA VAZQUEZ-MOYA, ONIE 0 LIVELY ) CODE tJ70616.5
16 TRUST, JOHN S LIVELY TRUST, AND )
DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE ) LIMITED AMOUNT
17 ) LESS THAN $ 25,000.00 or
MORE THAN $ 10,000.00)
18
Defendants.

20
Plaintiff, ROY MASON, hereby alleges:
21
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
At all times material to this complaint, defendants DON POLLO GRILLED
23
CHICKEN AND MEXICAN CUISINE, MARIO A VAZQUEZ, CELIA VAZQUEZ-MOYA, were
24
doing business under the name of DON POLLO GRILLED CHICKEN AND MEXICAN
28
CUISINE, in the State of California and County of SAN DIEGO, POWAY, CA.
26
2. At all times material to this complaint, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon
27
alleges that ONIE 0 LIVELY TRUST, JOHN S LIVELY TRUST are the owners and/or landlords
28

Complaint for Damages re: Violation of Civil Rights
Page l of 12
ADAAG 5.4 k CA Title 24 1104B.5.4 Accessible Seating Integrated w/General Seating Area
3 Accessible seating spaces are integrated with general seating and allow a reasonable
e selection of seating area and avoid having one area specifically highlighted as the area for

5 persons with disabilities.

s DOOR HARDWARE
9 CA T24 1132A.8, CA T24 11B-604.8.2.2, ADA 604.8.2.2, CA T24 11B-404.2.7, ADA 404.2.7,
10 ADAAG 4.13.9 - Improper and Requires Twisting of the Wrist to Operate

12 Handles, pulls, latches, locks and other operating devices on accessible doors shall have a
13 shape that is easy to grasp with one hand and does not require tight grasping, tight pinching,
or twisting of the wrist to operate. Lever-operated mechanisms, push type mechanisms, and

15 U-shaped handles are acceptable designs.
16

17 On or about February 26, 2022, plaintiff patronized defendant's business again with the
intent to be a customer and plaintiff encountered the same access barriers as listed above.
19 9. At the time of each of Plaintiff's visits to the subject property, Plaintiff encountered

20 one or more of the violations alleged in paragraph 8 such that Plaintiff was denied full and equal
21 access to the business on the subject property and/or Plaintiff experienced difficulty, discomfort or
22 embarrassment as a result of these aforementioned violations he personally encountered.
23 10. Under the provisions of Title 24 of the California Building Code, California Civil

2e Code section 54, 54.1 and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code sec. 51),

25 defendants are required to remove architectural barriers in existing buildings. California Civil Code
26 Sections 51, 54 and 54.1 also state in pertinent part: "a violation of the right of an individual under
27 the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336) also constitutes a violation of
26 this section."

Complaint for Damages re; Violation of Civil Rights
Page 5 of l2
1 DEMAND FOR JURY
2 37. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the claims made herein be heard and determined
by a jury.

WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS:
8 1. For general damages according to proof;
7 2. For special damages according to proof;
8 3. For damages pursuant to Cal. Civil Code section 52, in the amount of $ 4,000 for
9 violation of California Civil Code section 51, and Title 24 of the California Building Code.
10 4. For damages pursuant to Cal. Civil Code section 54.3 in the amount of $ 1,000 for
each violation of the California Disability Access Laws;
12 5. For an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code section 55;
13 6. For treble damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code 52 (a);
14 7. For costs of suit incurred herein, and;
8. For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.
y.'/iver" Ã
'~P jiPIAfjl'
j/y I
1'ated: 5/14/2022
18 ALBERT R SONNTAG, ESQ, SBN:137284
19
Attorney for Plaintiff, ROY MASON

Complaint for Damages re: Violation of Civil Rights
Page 12 of 12
VERIFICATION

I, ROY MASON, declare that I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have read the

foregoing COMPLAINT and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge
except as to those matters therein stated on information and belief and, as to those matters, I believe
them to be true.
7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing

5 responses are true and correct to the best of my present knowledge.

10 Executed this: 5/01/2022, at San Diego, California.

12
ROY MANN
13

PLAINTIFF'S VERIFICATION TO COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
EXHIBIT E
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2246 EXHIBITS - Page 14 -
BRIAN C. ANDREWS, ESQ. (SBN 212969)
brian(4briancandrews.corn
ANDREWS LAW GROUP
6104 Innovation Way
Carlsbad, CA 92009 11/3/2022
Phone: (858) 452-5600
Fax: (858) 452-5601

Attorney for Plaintiff,
ROY MASON

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
9 22-CIV-04598
ROY MASON, an individual, Case No.:
10
Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
12 vs. (VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS-
DISCRIMINATION BY PUBLIC
13 JESUS AYALA CARDENAS, an individual; ACCOMMODATION)
(California Civil Code 51)
14 LYNNE FRANK, Trustee of the FRANK II

SURVIVOR'S TRUST; ACTION SUBJECT TO THE
15 SCOTT R. FRANK, Trustee of the SCOTT R. SUPPLEMENTAL FEK IN GOVERNMENT
FRANK REVOCABLE TRUST; CODE SECTION 70616.5
16
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
17
Defendants.
18

19
Now Comes Plaintiff Roy Mason, by and through attorney Brian C. Andrews, Esq., and
20
alleges as follows:
21
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
22
1. The following Complaint is filed by high a frequency litigant as defined by Code of
23
Civil Procedure II425.55. Plaintiff was enjoying a visit to the area and decided to visit the subject
24
business. Plaintiff s purpose for visiting the subject business was to patronize and enjoy the goods
25
and/or services offered at the subject business.
26
2. Plaintiff is exempt &om the filing fee required by Government Code (j70616.5, as he
27
has met the Court requirements to qualify for a Request to Waive Court Fees ("Fee Waiver" ).
28

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
(VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS - DISCRIMINATION BY PUIILIC ACCOMMODATION)
PaSc I of 7
3. Defendant Jesus Ayala Cardenas is, and at all times alleged herein was, an individual
doing business in San Mateo County as "Ayala Produce Market."
4. Defendants Lynne Frank, Trustee of the Frank Survivor's Trust and Scott R. Frank,
Trustee of the Scott R. Frank Revocable Trust, are, and at all times alleged herein were, owner(s)
and/or landlord(s) of, or a controlling trustee of the trust that is the owner and/or landlord of, real
property in San Mateo County located at 175 West 25th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94403, that is
7 assigned San Mateo County Assessor Parcel Number 039-175-220 (hereinatter "Subject Property" ).
5. Defendant Jesus Ayala Cardenas is, and at all times alleged herein was, operating a
8
business of public accommodation in San Mateo County, California, to wif: a convience store
9
commonly known as "Ayala Produce Market" (at times hereinafter, "the Business" ) upon the
10
Subject Property.
11
6. Plaintiff is unaware of the true identities of the defendants sued as Does 1-100
12
herein, and therefore sues them with fictitious names as "Doe" defendants. Plaintiff alleges that
13 each defendant, including but not limited to each "Doe" defendant, was at all times alleged herein
14 an owner of, and/or operating a public accommodation upon, the Subject Property, and therefore
15 liable for the violations and damages alleged herein.
16 7. Defendants Jesus Ayala Cardenas, Lynne Frank, Trustee of the Frank Survivor's

17 Trust, Scott R. Frank, Trustee of the Scott R. Frank Revocable Trust and Does 1 to 100 shall
hereinaAer be referred to collectively as "Defendant". A reference in this Complaint to one
18
Defendant shall refer to each and every Defendant, named or fictitious. Plaintiff will seek leave of
19
the court to amend this Complaint to identify "Doe" defendants by name if and when such names
20
become known to Plaintiff.
21
8. Plaintiff has, and at all times mentioned herein did have, a "disability" as defined by
22
California Civil Code 8 51(e)(1) and 42 U.S.C. ti 12102, and a "physical disability" as defined by
23 California Government Code 8 12926. Plaintiff is confined to a wheelchair for mobility purposes
24 and suffers from a physiological condition that adversely affects Plaintiff s musculoskeletal system
25 and limits Plaintiff s major life activities, including walking, socializing, and working.
26 9. The Business, located upon the Subject Property, is a "public accommodation" as

27 defined by 42 U.S.C. 8 12181(7) and California Health and Safetv Code 8 19955.
10. On at least three occasions, including but not limited to January 26, 2022, February
28

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
(VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGI I'I'S - DISCRIMINATION BY PVBLIC ACCOMMODATION)
I'age 2 of 7
25, 2022 and March 24, 2022, prior to the date of filing this complaint, Plaintiff patronized or
attempted to patronize the business upon the Subject Property with the intent to be a customer. At
the time ol'each visit, Plaintiff personally encountered construction-related access barriers which
prevented Plaintiff s full and equal access to the business upon the Subject Property. Specifically,
Plaintiff encountered lack of ADA-compliant seating, fo wit, tables and counters lacking the
requisite clearance space underneath and/or at improper heights. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to
comfortably fit his wheelchair under the tables and counters. Plaintiff also encountered a step at the
entrance of the outside seating area which prevented him from being able to roll into that area in his
wheelchair. These violations caused Plaintiff difficulty, discomfort and embarrassment in that he
was unable to patronize Subject Business on an equal basis as non disabled patrons. The premises

10 violated the construction-related accessibility standards of Title 24 of the California Code of
Reuulations and of 28 C.F.R. Part 36 - ADA Accessibilitv Guidelines ("ADAAG"). Plaintiff
11
personally encountered these violations, causing Plaintiff difficulty, discomfort and embarrassment.
12
11. Based upon the facts alleged herein, Plaintiff has been discriminated against on the
13
basis of Plaintiff s physical disability and will continue to be discriminated against unless and until
14
Defendants are enjoined and forced to cease and desist from discriminating against Plaintiff and
15
others similarly situated. Plaintiff need not prove that that this discrimination is intentional to
16 recover damages for violations of the ADA and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Munson V. Del Taco,
17 Inc., 46 Cal.4th 661, 665 (2009). Plaintiff does not allege that the discrimination by Defendants is
18 intentional.
19 12. At the time of each of the three or more visits by Plaintiff to the Subject Property,
20 one or more of the violations alleged in Paragraph 10 herein denied the Plaintiff full and equal
21 access to the business upon the Subject Property by deterring the Plaintiff from accessing the
22 business upon the Subject Property or by causing the Plaintiff difficulty, discomfort, or
23 embarrassment because of these violation(s) that Plaintiff personally encountered.
24 13. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges the business upon the Subject Property is
25 not "CASp-inspected" nor is it "CASp determination pending", as those terms are defined by
26 California Civil Code 8 55.52(ak If Defendant or any defense counsel for Defendant wrongly
27 claims that the business upon the Subject Property is "CASp inspected" or "CASp determination
28

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
(VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS - DISCRIMINATION BY PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION)
Pago 3 of 7
Property, for total minimum damages of at least Twelve Thousand Dollars (USD $ 12,000).
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
3 (DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER CALIFORNIA STATE LAW ONLY)
(Against All Defendants)
32. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint at this point.
33. An actual controversy now exists in that Defendants are presently in violation of the
disabled-accessibility laws of the State of California codified at California Civil Code 8 51.

34. A declaration of PlaintifFs rights is necessary and appropriate in order for the parties
to this action to know their respective rights and duties under California law. Accordingly, the
10 court should make a declaration of the rights of the parties.
35. The declaratory relief sought in this action is premised upon California law only,
12 whether statutory or equitable, and is not sought pursuant to any federal statute or cause of action.
13 WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS:
14 1. For damages of no less than Four Thousand Dollars (USD $ 4,000) for each
15 occurrence of discrimination alleged herein, totaling a minimum of Twelve Thousand Dollars (USD
16 $ 12,000), or actual damages to be determined at trial, whichever is greater;

17 2. For injunctive and/or declaratory relief under California law as needed to end the
18 discrimination alleged herein;
19 3. For an award of attorney's fees pursuant to relevant provisions of law;
20 4. For the costs of suit incurred herein; and
21 5. For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.
22

23 Respectfully submitted, ANDREW'S Ld W GROUP, INC.
24
25
Dated: November 3, 2022
26
Brian C. Andrews, Esq. (SBN 212969)
27 Attorney for Plaintiff,
ROY MASON
28

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY
RELIEI'VIOLATION
OF CIVIL RIGHTS - DISCRIMINATION BY POBLIC ACCOMMODATION)
Page 7 of 7
VERIFICATION

3 I, ROY MASON, declare that I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have read the
4 foregoing COMPLAINT and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge
except as to those matters therein stated on information and belief and, as to those matters, I believe
6 them to be true.
7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
0 responses are true and correct to the best of my present knowledge.

10 Executed this: 09/28/?022, at San Diego, Califo

12
ROY MASCON
13

PLAINTIFF'S VERIFICATION TO COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 EXHIBIT F
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2246 EXHIBITS - Page 16 -
E-FILED
4/3/2023 12:00 AM
Clerk of Court
BRIAN C. ANDREWS, ESQ. (SBN 212969) Superior Court of CA,
brian@briancandrews.corn County of Santa Clara
ANDREWS LAW GROUP 23CV414037
6104 Innovation Way
Carlsbad, CA 92009 Reviewed By: B. Roman-Antunez
Phone: (858) 452-5600
Fax: (858) 452-5601

Attorney for Plaintiff,
ROY MASON

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THK COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE
9
ROY MASON, an individual, Case No.: 23CV414037
10
Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
12 vs. (VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS-
DISCRIMINATION BY PUBLIC
13 BACK A YARD CARIBBEAN AMERICAN ACCOMMODATION)
(California Civil Code $ 51)
14 GRILL, INC., a California corporation;
GELAGIO V, LLC, a California limited liability ACTION SUBJECT TO THE
15 company; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, SUPPLEMENTAL FEE IN GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 70616.5
16 Defendants.
17

18
Now Comes Plaintiff ROY MASON, by and through attorney Brian C. Andrews, Esq., and
19
alleges as follows:
20
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
21
1. The following Complaint is filed by high a frequency litigant as defined by Code of
22
Civil Procedure tj425.55. Plaintiff was enjoying a visit to the area and decided to visit the subject
23
business. Plaintiff s purpose for visiting the subject business was to patronize and enjoy the goods
24
and/or services offered at the subject business.
25
2. Plaintiff is exempt from the filing fee required by Government Code tj70616.5, as he
26
has met the Court requirements to qualify for a Request to Waive Court Fees ("Fee Waiver" ).
27
28

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
(VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS DISCRIMINATION BY PVBLIC ACCOMMODATION)
—

Page I of 7
3. Defendant BACK A YARD CARIBBEAN AMERICAN GRILL, INC., is, and at all
times alleged herein was, an organization doing business in Santa Clara County as "Back a Yard
Caribbean Grill."
4. Defendant GELAGIO V, LLC, is, and at all times alleged herein was, owner(s)
and/or landlord(s) of, or a controlling trustee of the trust that is the owner and/or landlord of, real
property in Santa Clara County located at 1740 S. Winchester Blvd, Campbell, CA 95008, that is
7 assigned Santa Clara County Assessor Parcel Number 279-37-008 (hereinafter "Subject Property" ).
5. Defendant BACK A YARD CARIBBEAN AMERICAN GRILL, INC., is, and at all
8
times alleged herein was, operating a business of public accommodation in Santa Clara County,
9
California, ro wit: a restaurant commonly known as "Back a Yard Caribbean Grill" (at times
10
hereinafter, "the Business" ) upon the Subject Property.
11
6. Plaintiff is unaware of the true identities of the defendants sued as Does 1-100
12
herein, and therefore sues them with fictitious names as "Doe" defendants. Plaintiff alleges that
13 each defendant, including but not limited to each "Doe" defendant, was at all times alleged herein
14 an owner of, and/or operating a public accommodation upon, the Subject Property, and therefore
15 liable for the violations and damages alleged herein.

16 7. Defendants BACK A YARD CARIBBEAN AMERICAN GRILL, INC.; GELAGIO

17 V, LLC; and Does I to 100 shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as "Defendant". A reference
in this Complaint to one Defendant shall refer to each and every Defendant, named or fictitious.
18
Plaintiff will seek leave of the court to amend this Complaint to identify "Doe" defendants by name
19
if and when such names become known to Plaintiff.
20
8. Plaintiff has, and at all times mentioned herein did have, a "disability" as defined by
21
California Civil Code 8 51(e)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 8 12102, and a "physical disability" as defined by
22 California Government Code 8 12926. Plaintiff is confined to a wheelchair for mobility purposes
23 and suffers from a physiological condition that adversely affects Plaintiff s musculoskeletal system
24 and limits Plaintiff s major life activities, including walking, socializing, and working.
25 9. The Business, located upon the Subject Property, is a "public accommodation" as
26 defined by 42 U.S.C. 8 12181(7) and California Health and Safetv Code 8 19955.

27 10. On at least three occasions, including but not limited to 1/26/2022, 3/25/2022 and
5/8/2022, prior to the date of filing this complaint, Plaintiff patronized or attempted to patronize the
28

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
(VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS - DISCRIMINATION BY PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION)
Page 2 of 7
Civil Code ti 52&a) for each of the Plaintiff s three or more visits to the business upon the Subject
Property, for total minimum damages of at least Twelve Thousand Dollars (USD $ 12,000).
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
4 (DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER CALIFORNIA STATE LAW ONLY)
(Against All Defendants)
32. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint at this point.
33. An actual controversy now exists in that Defendants are presently in violation of the
disabled-accessibility laws of the State of California codified at California Civil Code 8 51.

34. A declaration of Plaintiff s rights is necessary and appropriate in order for the parties
10 to this action to know their respective rights and duties under California law. Accordingly, the
court should make a declaration of the rights of the parties.
12 35. The declaratory relief sought in this action is premised upon California law only,
13 whether statutory or equitable, and is not sought pursuant to any federal statute or cause of action.
14 WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS:
15 1. For damages of no less than Four Thousand Dollars (USD $ 4,000) for each
16 occurrence of discrimination alleged herein, totaling a minimum of Twelve Thousand Dollars (USD
17 $ 12,000), or actual damages to be determined at trial, whichever is greater;
18 2. For injunctive and/or declaratory relief under California law as needed to end the
19 discrimination alleged herein;
20 3. For an award of attorney's fees pursuant to relevant provisions of law;
21 4. For the costs of suit incurred herein; and
22 5. For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.
23 Respectfully submitted,
24
25
Dated: I"XARCh 4'b, 2C728
26 Brian C. Andrews, Esq. (SBN 212969)
27 Attorney for Plaintiff,
ROY MASON
28

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
(VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS DISCRIMINATION BY PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION)
—

Page 7 of 7
VERIFICATION

3 I, ROY MASON, declare that I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have read the

foregoing COMPLAINT and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge
except as to those matters thet ein stated on information and belief and, as to those matters, I believe
6 them to be true.
7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
6 responses are true and correct to the best of my present knowledge.

10 Executed this: 9/20/2022, at San Diego, Cali for

12
/F
ROY tvIASON
13

PLAINTII-'F'S VERIFICATION TO COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 EXHIBIT G
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2246 EXHIBITS - Page 18 -
BRIAN C. ANDREWS, ESQ. (SBN 212969)
briangbriancandrews. corn
ANDREWS LAW GROUP
6104 Innovation Way
Carlsbad, CA 92009 3/8/2023
Phone: (858) 452-5600
Fax: (858) 452-5601

Attorney for Plaintiff,
ROY MASON
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THK STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
9
ROY MASON, an individual, Case No.: 22-CIV-04604
10
Plaintiff, Assigned to:
11 The Honorable Danny Y. Chou, Dept. 22
12 vs. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY
13 CARVER DEAN, LLC, a California limited RELIEF
14 liability company; (VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS-
JOAN E. LOVAN, as Trustee of the Joan E. DISCRIMINATION BY PUBLIC
15 Lovan Separate Property Trust dated July 20, ACCOMMODATION)
2012; (California Civil Code tj 51)
16 MICHAEL C. MUSCARDINI, Trustee of the ACTION SUBJECT TO THE
17 Michael C. Muscardini 2012 Trust dated SUPPLEMENTAL FEE IN GOVERNMENT
November 28, 2012; CODE SECTION 70616.5
and DOES I to 100, inclusive,
19 Defendants.
20
21 Now Comes Plaintiff Roy Mason, by and through attorney Brian C. Andrews, Esq., and
22 alleges as follows:
23 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
24 1. The following Complaint is filed by high a frequency litigant as defined by Code of
25 Civil Procedure tj425.55. Plaintiff was in the geographic area visiting his son in Concord. Plaintiff
26 decided to visit the subject business. Plaintiff s purpose for visiting the subject business was to
27 patronize and enjoy the goods and/or services offered at the subject business. Plaintiff visited the
28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
(VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS - DISCRIMINATION BY PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION)
Page I of 8
Plaintiff
and limits Plaintiff s major life activities, including walking, socializing, and working.
no sensation in his left leg. Plaintiff is able to use his upper body and he uses a manual wheelchair
for mobility. Plaintiff can use his right leg to apply the break on his wheelchair. Plaintiff cannot
stand or walk using crutches. Plaintiff drives a van for transportation.
ha

9. The Business, located upon the Subject Property, is a "public accommodation" as
defined by 42 U.S.C. 6 1218 f7) and California Health and Safetv Code 8 19955.
10. On at least two occasions, prior to the date of filing this complaint, Plaintiff
patronized or attempted to patronize the business upon the Subject Property with the intent to be a
customer. Plaintiff first visited the business on the aAernoon of January 26, 2022. During his visit,
Plaintiff personally encountered construction-related access barriers which prevented Plaintiff s full

10 and equal access to the business upon the Subject Property. Specifically, Plaintiff encountered lack
of ADA-compliant counter seating, to wit, the counters are too high and lack the requisite clearance
space underneath to allow seating for wheelchair users. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to use the
12
counter seating.
13
11. Plaintiff also encountered lack of compliant restrooms. While there was a restroom
14
which had a sign indicating it was wheelchair accessible, Plaintiff reasonably believed it was a
15 women's restroom. The men's restroom lacked ADA-compliant grab bars, lacked sufficient turning
16 space for a wheelchair, and the paper towel dispenser was too high. As a result, Plaintiff was
17 unable to use the restroom facilities.
18 12. Plaintiff visited the Subject Business again on or about March 25, 2022. Plaintiff
19 observed that the barriers he encountered had not been remedied. As a result, he was deterred and

20 left the Subject Business.
13. These violations caused Plaintiff difficulty, discomfort, and embarrassment in that he
21
was unable to patronize Subject Business on an equal basis as non-disabled patrons. The premises
22
violated the construction-related accessibility standards of Title 24 of the California Code of
23
Reeulations and of 28 C.F.R. Part 36 - ADA Accessibilitv Guidelines ("ADAAG"). Plaintiff
24
personally encountered these violations, causing Plaintiff difficulty, discomfort, and embarrassment.
25
14. Based upon the facts alleged herein, Plaintiff has been discriminated against based
26 on Plaintiff s physical disability and will continue to be discriminated against unless and until
27 Defendants are enjoined and forced to cease and desist from discriminating against Plaintiff and

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
(VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS - DISCRIMINATION BY PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION)
Page 3 of 8
1 WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS:
1. For damages of no less than Four Thousand Dollars (USD $ 4,000) for each
occurrence of discrimination alleged herein, totaling a minimum of Eight Thousand Dollars (USD
$ 8,000), or actual damages to be determined at trial, whichever is greater;

2. For injunctive and/or declaratory relief under California law as needed to end the
discrimination alleged herein;
3. For an award of attorney's fees pursuant to relevant provisions of law;
4. For the costs of suit incurred herein; and
5. For such other and further relief as the court deems proper.
10

Respectfully submitted,
12

14
Dated: March 8, 2023 (IU
Brian C. Andrews, Esq. (SBN 212969)
15 Attorney for Plaintiff,
ROY MASON
16

20
21

24
25

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
(VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS - DISCRIMINATION BY PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION)
Pago 8 of 8
VERIFICATION

3 I, ROY MASON, declare that I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have read the

8 responses are true and correct to the best of my present knowledge.

10 Executed this: 9/21/2022, at San Diego, California.

12
ROY MASON
13

PLAINTIFF'S VERlFICATION TO COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 EXHIBIT H
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2246 EXHIBITS - Page 20 -
BRIAN C. ANDREWS, KSQ. (SBN 212969)
brianC4briancandrews.corn
ANDREWS LAW GROUP
6104 Innovation Way
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Phone: (858) 452-5600
Fax: (858) 452-5601

Attorney for Plaintiff,
ROY MASON

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, NORTH COUNTY DIVISION
9
ROY MASON, an individual, Case No.:
10
Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
12 vs. (VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS-
DISCRIMINATION BY PUBLIC
13 ESCOGELATO, LLC, a California limited ACCOMMODATION)
liability company; (California Civil Code FI 51)
14
BRADLEY BURKE, an individual; ACTION SUBJECT TO THE
15 HONEY BURKE, an individual; SUPPLEMENTAL FEE IN GOVERNMENT
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, CODE SECTION 70616.5
16

17 Defendants.

19 Now Comes Plaintiff Roy Mason, by and through attorney Brian C. Andrews, Esq., and

20 alleges as follows:

21 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

22 1. The following Complaint is filed by high a frequency litigant as defined by Code of

23 Civil Procedure tj425.55. Plaintiffhas filed 14 complaints alleging construction related

24 accessibility claims in the past 12 months. Plaintiff was enjoying a visit to the area and decided to

25 visit the subject business. Plaintiff s purpose for visiting the subject business was to patronize and

26 enjoy the goods and/or services offered at the subject business.

27 2. Plaintiff is exempt from the filing fee required by Government Code )70616.5, as he

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
(VIOI,ATION Ol'IVIL RIGHTS - DISCRIMINATION BY PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION)
Page I of 7
has met the Court requirements to qualify for a Request to Waive Court Fees ("Fee Waiver" ).
3. Defendant Escogelato, LLC is, and at all times alleged herein was, an organization
doing business in San Diego County as "EscoGelato.a
4. Defendants Bradley Burke and Honey Burke, are, and at all times alleged herein
were, owner(s) and/or landlord(s) of, or a controlling trustee of the trust that is the owner and/or
landlord of, real property in San Diego County located at 122 South Kalmia Street, Escondido, CA
92025, that is assigned San Diego County Assessor Parcel Number 233-082-22-00 (hereinafter
8 "Subject Property").
5. Defendant Escogelato, LLC is, and at all times alleged herein was, operating a
9
business of public accommodation in San Diego County, California, ro wif: a restaurant commonly
10
known as "FscoGelato" (at times hereinafter, "the Business" ) upon the Subject Property.
11
6. Plaintiff is unaware of the true identities of the defendants sued as Does 1-100
12
herein, and therefore sues them with fictitious names as "Doe" defendants. Plaintiff alleges that
13
each defendant, including but not limited to each "Doe" defendant, was at all times alleged herein
14 an owner of, and/or operating a public accommodation upon, the Subject Property, and therefore
15 liable for the violations and damages alleged herein.
16 7. Defendants Escogelato, LLC; Bradley Burke; Honey Burke; and Does 1 to 100 shall
17 hereinafter be referred to collectively as "Defendant". A reference in this Complaint to one

18
Defendant shall refer to each and every Defendant, named or fictitious. Plaintiff will seek leave of
the court to amend this Complaint to identify "Doe" defendants by name if and when such names
19
become known to Plaintiff.
20
8. Plaintiff has, and at all times mentioned herein did have, a "disability" as defined by
21
California Civil Code 8 51(e)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 8 12102, and a "physical disability" as defined by
22
California Government Code 8 12926. Plaintiff is confined to a wheelchair for mobility purposes
23
and suffers from a physiological condition that adversely affects Plaintiff s musculoskeletal system
24 and limits Plaintiff s major life activities, including walking, socializing, and working.
25 9. The Business, located upon the Subject Property, is a "public accommodation" as
26 defined by 42 U.S.C. 8 12181(7) and California Health and Safetv Code 8 19955.

27 10. On at least three occasions, including but not limited to January 26, 2022; March 1,

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
(VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS - DISCRIMINATION BY PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION)
Pago 2 of 7
2022; and April 26, 2022, prior to the date of filing this complaint, Plaintiff patronized or attempted
to patronize thc business upon the Subject Property with the intent to be a customer. At the time of
each visit, Plaintiff personally encountered construction-related access barriers which prevented
Plaintiffs full and equal access to the business upon the Subject Property. Specifically, Plaintiff
encountered lack of ADA-compliant seating, Io wif, tables lacking the requisite clearance space
underneath and/or at improper heights. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to comfortably fit his
wheelchair under the tables. These violations caused Plaintiff difficulty, discomfort and
embarrassment in that he was unable to patronize Subject Business on an equal basis as non
disabled patrons. The premises violated the construction-related accessibility standards of Title 24
of the California Code of Rcvulations and of 28 C.F.R. Pari 36 - ADA Acccssibilitv Guidelines
("ADAAG"). Plaintiff personally encountered these violations, causing Plaintiff difficulty,
discomfort and embarrassment.
11. Based upon the facts alleged herein, Plaintiff has been discriminated against on the
12
basis of Plaintiff s physical disability and will continue to be discriminated against unless and until
13
Defendants are enjoined and forced to cease and desist from discriminating against Plaintiff and
14
others similarly situated. Plaintiff need not prove that that this discrimination is intentional to
15
recover damages for violations of the ADA and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Munson v. De/ Taco,
Inc., 46 Cal.4th 661, 665 (2009). Plaintiff does not allege that the discrimination by Defendants is
17 intentional.
18
12. At the time of each of the three or more visits by Plaintiff to the Subject Property,
19
onc or more of the violations alleged in Paragraph 10 herein denied the Plaintiff full and equal
20
access to the business upon the Subject Property by deterring the Plaintiff from accessing the
21
business upon the Subject Property or by causing the Plaintiff difficulty, discomfort, or
22
embarrassment because of these violation(s) that Plaintiff personally encountered.
23
13. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges the business upon the Subject Property is
24
not "CASp-inspected" nor is it "CASp determination pending", as those terms are defined by
25
California Civil Code 8 55.52(a'l. If Defendant or any defense counsel for Defendant wrongly
26
claims that the business upon the Subject Property is "CASp inspected" or "CASp
27
determination pending" aud applies for a stay of the proceedings in this action, PLAINTIFF
28

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND Dl:.CI.ARATORY RELIEF
(VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS - DISCRIMINATION BY PIJBLIC ACCOMMODATION)
Page 3 of 7
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
2 (DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER CALIFORNIA STATE LAW ONLY)
(Against All Defendants)
32. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint at this point.
33. An actual controversy now exists in that Defendants are presently in violation of the
disabled-accessibility laws of the State of California codified at California Civil Code 6 51.
34. A declaration of Plaintiff s rights is necessary and appropriate in order for the parties
to this action to know their respective rights and duties under California law. Accordingly, the

court should make a declaration of the rights of the parties.
10 35. The declaratory relief sought in this action is premised upon California law only,
whether statutory or equitable, and is not sought pursuant to any federal statute or cause of action.
12 WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS:
13 1. For damages of no less than Four Thousand Dollars (USD $ 4,000) for each
14 occurrence of discrimination alleged herein, totaling a minimum of Twelve Thousand Dollars (USD
15 $ 12,000), or actual damages to be determined at trial, whichever is greater;
16 2. For injunctive and/or declaratory relief under California law as n

Case Info

Judge

Halperin, Ernst Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

April 02, 2024

Case Filing Date

September 06, 2022

County

Parties

ANDREWS, BRIAN C Attorney for the Plaintiff
DOES 1 TO 100, INCLUSIVE Defendant
DURAN, EDWARD Defendant
JACKLIN, EVA M Attorney for the Defendant
JACKLIN, EVE M. Attorney for the Defendant
MASON, ROY Plaintiff
SAHELIAN, ARA Attorney for the Defendant
TAQUERIA LA CUMBRE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION Defendant
Brett DeBorde Attorney
Derek Hunt Attorney
Alberto Sonntag Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Richard Shore Attorney
Christian Clauson Attorney

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