Preview
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF3890DC-EDFA-4A5C-8E24-F233834CFEEF
THE REDDY LAW FIRM LLC
1 Prathima Reddy Price, Esq., SBN 321378
Sumedh Rishi, Esq., SBN 348167
2 103 Bay Park Terrace, Alameda, CA 94502 ELECTRONICALLY
3
(646) 468-4257; (510) 217-3541 fax FILED
preddy@thereddylaw.com Superior Court of California,
eserve@thereddylaw.com County of San Francisco
4
04/05/2024
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff Clerk of the Court
BY: SHENEQUA GLADNEY
Deputy Clerk
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
9
10 CGC-24-613715
Orlando Garcia, Case No.
11
Plaintiff, UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE
12
13 v. Verified Complaint for Damages and
Injunctive Relief for Violations of:
14 Jun Sik Yoon; Unruh Civil Rights Act; California
Disabled Persons Act
15 Hayung Yoon;
Edmond Charles Kubein and DOES 1
16 through 50 inclusive ; ACTION SUBJECT TO THE
17 SUPPLEMENTAL FEE IN
Defendants. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
18 70616.5
19
20
Plaintiff Orlando Garcia complains of Jun Sik Yoon; Hayung Yoon; Edmond
21
Charles Kubein and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive; (“Defendants”); and alleges as
22
follows:
23 PARTIES:
24 1. Plaintiff is a California resident with physical disabilities and a member of a
25 protected class of persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Plaintiff
26 suffers from Cerebral Palsy. He has manual dexterity issues. He cannot walk. He uses a
27 wheelchair for mobility.
28 2. Defendants Jun Sik Yoon and Hayung Yoon owned the real property located at or
1
Verified Complaint
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF3890DC-EDFA-4A5C-8E24-F233834CFEEF
1 about 2147 Clement St., San Francisco, California, in April 2022.
3. Defendants Jun Sik Yoon and Hayung Yoon own the real property located at or
2
about 2147 Clement St., San Francisco, California, currently.
3
4. Defendant Edmond Charles Kubein owned Bourbon County (“Store”) located at
4
or about 2147 Clement St., San Francisco, California, in April 2022.
5
5. Defendant Edmond Charles Kubein owns Bourbon County located at or about
6
2147 Clement St., San Francisco, California, currently.
7
6. Plaintiff does not know the true names of Defendants, their business capacities,
8
their ownership connection to the property and business, or their relative responsibilities
9 in causing the access violations herein complained of, and alleges a joint venture and
10 common enterprise by all such Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of
11 Defendants herein is responsible in some capacity for the events herein alleged, or is a
12 necessary party for obtaining appropriate relief. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend when
13 the true names, capacities, connections, and responsibilities of Defendants are
14 ascertained.
15 JURISDICTION:
16 7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action as a court of general
17 jurisdiction. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants
conduct substantial business in the County of San Francisco.
18
8. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendants conduct business in this County.
19
9. Unlimited jurisdiction is proper because Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction
20
ordering compliance with the Unruh Civil Rights Act and California Disabled Persons
21
Act.
22
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS:
23
10. Plaintiff went to the Store on April 6, 2022, with the intention to avail himself of
24 its goods, services, privileges, or advantages (“Benefits”) motivated in part to
25 determine if Defendants comply with the disability access laws. While trying to
26 patronize the facility, Plaintiff personally encountered unlawful barriers on April 6
27 2022. Plaintiff revisited the facility on April 7, 2022, hoping the barriers would have
28 been remediated by then. However, Plaintiff encountered these barriers once again.
2
Verified Complaint
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF3890DC-EDFA-4A5C-8E24-F233834CFEEF
1 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 to have something to
5
snack on.
6
13. Unfortunately, on the dates of Plaintiff’s visits, the facility failed to comply with
7
ADA Standards as it relates to wheelchair users like Plaintiff.
8
14. Plaintiff observed or encountered the following non-compliant conditions:
9 Feature Compliance Issue Standard1
10
Sales counters The sales counter was too § 904
11 high. There was no counter
12 that was 36 inches or less in
13 height that plaintiff could
14 use for his transaction.
15 Door Hardware The entrance door hardware § 404
16 had a pull bar style handle
17 that required tight grasping
18 to operate.
19 15. The above features are all available Benefits offered to customers but not offered
20 in conformance with the ADA standard as they relate to Plaintiff’s disability.
16. The failure to provide accessible sales counter denied Plaintiff full and equal
21
access Because the Plaintiff was not able to reach to the counter and could not complete
22
the transaction without difficulty and embarrassment.
23
17. The failure to provide accessible door hardware denied Plaintiff full and equal
24
access as it required tight grasping and use of both hands to operate.
25
18. Plaintiff believes that there are other elements of the above features that likely fail
26
to comply with the ADA Standards and seeks to have fully compliant Benefits for
27
wheelchair users.
28
1
Cites to the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design unless otherwise indicated.
3
Verified Complaint
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF3890DC-EDFA-4A5C-8E24-F233834CFEEF
1 19. On information and belief, the above conditions currently exist.
20. These above barriers relate to and impact Plaintiff’s disability. Plaintiff personally
2
encountered these barriers.
3
21. As a wheelchair user, Plaintiff benefits from and is entitled to use wheelchair
4
accessible facilities. The above inaccessible conditions deny Plaintiff full and equal
5
access.
6
22. Defendants have failed to maintain in working and useable conditions those
7
features required to provide ready access to persons with disabilities.
8
23. All of barriers identified above are easily removed without much difficulty or
9
expense. They are the types of barriers identified by the Department of Justice for
10 attention and these barriers are readily achievable to remove. However, should full
11 compliance not be readily achievable, there are numerous alternative accommodations
12 that could be made to provide a greater level of access than presently exists.
13 24. Given the obvious and blatant nature of the barriers and violations alleged herein,
14 Plaintiff alleges that defendants have failed to take the necessary steps to ensure removal
15 of non-compliant architectural barriers as required by 42 U.S.C. § 12182(2)(A)(iv) and
16 on information and belief, alleges that there are other violations and barriers on the site
17 that relate to his disability. Plaintiff will amend the complaint to provide proper notice
18 regarding the scope of this lawsuit once he conducts a site inspection. Plaintiff seeks to
have all barriers related to his disability remedied. See Doran v. 7-Eleven, 524 F.3d 1034
19
(9th Cir. 2008) (holding that once a plaintiff encounters one barrier at a site, he can sue to
20
have all barriers that relate to his disability removed regardless of whether he personally
21
encountered them).
22
25. As the ADA has existed since 1990, and the facility is still non-compliant,
23
Plaintiff alleges the above conditions are the result of either a policy failure or systematic
24
negligence such that only regular audits of the facility architecture and policies will
25
ensure future compliance.
26 26. Plaintiff is currently deterred from returning to the Store due to knowledge of the
27 existing barriers and uncertainty about the existence of yet other barriers on the site. If the
28 barriers are not removed, Plaintiff will face unlawful and discriminatory barriers again.
4
Verified Complaint
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF3890DC-EDFA-4A5C-8E24-F233834CFEEF
1 Plaintiff will return to the Store after the conclusion of the case to avail himself of its
benefits and to confirm compliance with the disability access laws once it is represented
2
to him the Store and its facilities are accessible.
3
CCP § 425.50 Compliance Statements:
4
27. Compliance testing is recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court and civil rights
5
advocates as a necessary method of enforcing civil rights laws.
6
28. Pursuant to CCP § 425.50(a)(4)(i) Plaintiff states they qualify as a high frequency
7
litigant as defined by CCP § 425.55. Plaintiff is an ADA advocate and tester as that term
8
is understood and protected under federal law. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S.
9 363 (1982); C.R. Educ. & Enf’t Ctr. v. Hosp. Properties Tr., 867 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir.
10 2017).
11 29. Pursuant to CCP § 425.50(a)(4)(ii), Plaintiff states in the year preceding the
12 drafting of this complaint they filed approximately 646 lawsuits alleging violations of
13 construction-related accessibility standards.
14 30. Pursuant to CCP § 425.50(a)(4)(iii), Plaintiff states on the date alleged above,
15 Plaintiff was in the area for shopping and went to the Store to have something to snack
16 on. Plaintiff was in the area around the business engaged in constitutionally protected
17 tester activities visiting businesses in the same manner as a potential customer to confirm
their compliance with state and federal laws. Plaintiff’s encounter with the above listed
18
conditions resulted in a denial of full and equal access under the ADA.
19
31. Pursuant to CCP § 425.50(a)(4)(iv), Plaintiff states Plaintiff visited the subject
20
business for the purpose of testing facility compliance with accessibility laws with the
21
intention to use the Benefits of the facility in the same manner as a customer.
22
32. At the conclusion of this suit and after being informed that the barriers
23
complained of have been removed, in furtherance of Plaintiff’s tester motivations,
24 Plaintiff intends to return to the business to confirm accessibility of the above conditions.
25 I. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
26 (On behalf of Plaintiff and against all Defendants.) Cal. Civ. Code § 51-53.
27 33. Plaintiff re-pleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth again herein,
28 the allegations contained in all prior paragraphs of this complaint.
5
Verified Complaint
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF3890DC-EDFA-4A5C-8E24-F233834CFEEF
1 34. Under the ADA, it is an act of discrimination to fail to ensure that the privileges,
advantages, accommodations, facilities, goods and services of any place of public
2
accommodation are offered on a full and equal basis by anyone who owns, leases, or
3
operates a place of public accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Discrimination is
4
defined, inter alia, as follows:
5
a. A failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or
6
procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford goods,
7
services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to
8
individuals with disabilities, unless the accommodation would work a
9 fundamental alteration of those services and facilities. 42 U.S.C. §
10 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).
11 b. A failure to remove architectural barriers where such removal is readily
12 achievable. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). Barriers are defined by
13 reference to the ADA Standards.
14 c. A failure to make alterations in such a manner that, to the maximum extent
15 feasible, the altered portions of the facility are readily accessible to and
16 usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use
17 wheelchairs or to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible, the path of
travel to the altered area and the bathrooms, telephones, and drinking
18
fountains serving the altered area, are readily accessible to and usable by
19
individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2).
20
35. When a business provides sales counters, it must provide accessible sales
21
counters.
22
36. Here, accessible sales counters was not provided in conformance with the ADA
23
Standards.
24 37. When a business provides door hardware, it must provide accessible door
25
hardware.
26
38. Here, accessible door hardware was not provided in conformance with the ADA
27 Standards.
28 39. The Safe Harbor provisions of the 2010 Standards are not applicable here because
6
Verified Complaint
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF3890DC-EDFA-4A5C-8E24-F233834CFEEF
1 the conditions challenged in this lawsuit do not comply with the 1991 Standards.
40. A public accommodation must maintain in operable working condition those
2
features of its facilities and equipment that are required to be readily accessible to and
3
usable by persons with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 36.211(a).
4
41. Here, the failure to ensure that accessible facilities were available and ready to be
5
used by Plaintiff is a violation of the law.
6
42. The Unruh Act provides that any violation of the ADA is a violation of the Unruh
7
Act. Cal. Civ. Code, § 51(f).
8
43. Defendants' acts and omissions, as herein alleged, have violated the Unruh Act
9 by, inter alia, denying, or aiding, or inciting the denial of, Plaintiff’s rights to full and
10 equal use of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services offered.
11 44. Because the violation of the ADA resulted in a denial of full and equal access to
12 Plaintiff, Defendants are also each responsible for statutory damages, i.e., a civil penalty.
13 Civ. Code § 55.56(a)-(c).
14 II. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA DISABLED
15 PERSONS ACT
(On behalf of Plaintiff and against all Defendants.) Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1.
16
45. Plaintiff repleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth again herein,
17
the allegations contained in all prior paragraphs of this complaint. The California
18
Disabled Persons Act (“CDPA”) guarantees, inter alia, that persons with disabilities are
19
entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in
20
all business establishments of every kind whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the State
21
of California. Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1.
22
46. The CDPA provides that any violation of the ADA is a violation of the CDPA.
23 Cal. Civ. Code, § 54.1(d).
24 47. Defendants' acts and omissions, as herein alleged, have violated the CDPA by,
25 inter alia, denying, or aiding, or inciting the denial of, Plaintiff’s rights to full and equal
26 use of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services offered.
27 48. Because the violation of the ADA resulted in a denial of full and equal access to
28 Plaintiff, Defendants are also each responsible for statutory damages, i.e., a civil penalty.
7
Verified Complaint
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF3890DC-EDFA-4A5C-8E24-F233834CFEEF
1 Cal. Civ. Code § 54.3.
PRAYER:
2
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that this Court award damages and provide relief as
3
follows:
4
1. For injunctive relief, compelling Defendants to remove all presently existing
5
architectural barriers as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh
6
Civil Rights Act.2
7
2. For injunctive relief requiring that Defendants obtain biennial Certified Access
8
Specialist (“CASp”) architectural inspections of the subject facility to verify on-going
9 ADA compliance and follow those inspection’s recommendations of all readily
10 achievable barrier removal.
11 3. For injunctive relief requiring implementation of accessibility policies and
12 requiring annual employee training on providing full and equal access to clients or
13 customers with disabilities.
14 4. Damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act or California Disabled Persons Act,
15 which provide for up to treble actual damages and a statutory minimum of $4,000 or
16 $1,000 respectively per violation of each Act. While Plaintiff may prevail on each act
17 individually, Plaintiff only seeks monetary recovery under whichever act results in the
greatest damages, to be determined at trial.
18
5. Reasonable attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit, pursuant to Cal.
19
Civ. Code § 52 and or § 54.1.
20
21
Dated: April 5, 2024 THE REDDY LAW FIRM LLC
22
23
24 By: ______________________
[7
25 Prathima Reddy Price, Esq.
26 Attorney for Plaintiff
27
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.
8
Verified Complaint
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF3890DC-EDFA-4A5C-8E24-F233834CFEEF
1 VERIFICATION
I am a party to this action, and I have read the complaint titled Garcia v. Jun Sik Yoon,
2
et al. and know its content. The facts stated in the complaint are true and based on my
3
own knowledge, except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to
4
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:
4/5/2024
Brando Garcia
10 Dated: ______________ By: __________________
11 Orlando Garcia
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Verified Complaint
Preview
DocuSign Envelope ID: FF3890DC-EDFA-4A5C-8E24-F233834CFEEF THE REDDY LAW FIRM LLC 1 Prathima Reddy Price, Esq., SBN 321378 Sumedh Rishi, Esq., SBN 348167 2 103 Bay Park Terrace, Alameda, CA 94502 ELECTRONICALLY 3 (646) 468-4257; (510) 217-3541 fax FILED preddy@thereddylaw.com Superior Court of California, eserve@thereddylaw.com County of San Francisco 4 04/05/2024 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff Clerk of the Court BY: SHENEQUA GLADNEY Deputy Clerk 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 9 10 CGC-24-613715 Orlando Garcia, Case No. 11 Plaintiff, UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE 12 13 v. Verified Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief for Violations of: 14 Jun Sik Yoon; Unruh Civil Rights Act; California Disabled Persons Act 15 Hayung Yoon; Edmond Charles Kubein and DOES 1 16 through 50 inclusive ; ACTION SUBJECT TO THE 17 SUPPLEMENTAL FEE IN Defendants. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 18 70616.5 19 20 Plaintiff Orlando Garcia complains of Jun Sik Yoon; Hayung Yoon; Edmond 21 Charles Kubein and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive; (“Defendants”); and alleges as 22 follows: 23 PARTIES: 24 1. Plaintiff is a California resident with physical disabilities and a member of a 25 protected class of persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Plaintiff 26 suffers from Cerebral Palsy. He has manual dexterity issues. He cannot walk. He uses a 27 wheelchair for mobility. 28 2. Defendants Jun Sik Yoon and Hayung Yoon owned the real property located at or 1 Verified Complaint DocuSign Envelope ID: FF3890DC-EDFA-4A5C-8E24-F233834CFEEF 1 about 2147 Clement St., San Francisco, California, in April 2022. 3. Defendants Jun Sik Yoon and Hayung Yoon own the real property located at or 2 about 2147 Clement St., San Francisco, California, currently. 3 4. Defendant Edmond Charles Kubein owned Bourbon County (“Store”) located at 4 or about 2147 Clement St., San Francisco, California, in April 2022. 5 5. Defendant Edmond Charles Kubein owns Bourbon County located at or about 6 2147 Clement St., San Francisco, California, currently. 7 6. Plaintiff does not know the true names of Defendants, their business capacities, 8 their ownership connection to the property and business, or their relative responsibilities 9 in causing the access violations herein complained of, and alleges a joint venture and 10 common enterprise by all such Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of 11 Defendants herein is responsible in some capacity for the events herein alleged, or is a 12 necessary party for obtaining appropriate relief. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend when 13 the true names, capacities, connections, and responsibilities of Defendants are 14 ascertained. 15 JURISDICTION: 16 7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action as a court of general 17 jurisdiction. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants conduct substantial business in the County of San Francisco. 18 8. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendants conduct business in this County. 19 9. Unlimited jurisdiction is proper because Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction 20 ordering compliance with the Unruh Civil Rights Act and California Disabled Persons 21 Act. 22 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS: 23 10. Plaintiff went to the Store on April 6, 2022, with the intention to avail himself of 24 its goods, services, privileges, or advantages (“Benefits”) motivated in part to 25 determine if Defendants comply with the disability access laws. While trying to 26 patronize the facility, Plaintiff personally encountered unlawful barriers on April 6 27 2022. Plaintiff revisited the facility on April 7, 2022, hoping the barriers would have 28 been remediated by then. However, Plaintiff encountered these barriers once again. 2 Verified Complaint DocuSign Envelope ID: FF3890DC-EDFA-4A5C-8E24-F233834CFEEF 1 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 to have something to 5 snack on. 6 13. Unfortunately, on the dates of Plaintiff’s visits, the facility failed to comply with 7 ADA Standards as it relates to wheelchair users like Plaintiff. 8 14. Plaintiff observed or encountered the following non-compliant conditions: 9 Feature Compliance Issue Standard1 10 Sales counters The sales counter was too § 904 11 high. There was no counter 12 that was 36 inches or less in 13 height that plaintiff could 14 use for his transaction. 15 Door Hardware The entrance door hardware § 404 16 had a pull bar style handle 17 that required tight grasping 18 to operate. 19 15. The above features are all available Benefits offered to customers but not offered 20 in conformance with the ADA standard as they relate to Plaintiff’s disability. 16. The failure to provide accessible sales counter denied Plaintiff full and equal 21 access Because the Plaintiff was not able to reach to the counter and could not complete 22 the transaction without difficulty and embarrassment. 23 17. The failure to provide accessible door hardware denied Plaintiff full and equal 24 access as it required tight grasping and use of both hands to operate. 25 18. Plaintiff believes that there are other elements of the above features that likely fail 26 to comply with the ADA Standards and seeks to have fully compliant Benefits for 27 wheelchair users. 28 1 Cites to the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design unless otherwise indicated. 3 Verified Complaint DocuSign Envelope ID: FF3890DC-EDFA-4A5C-8E24-F233834CFEEF 1 19. On information and belief, the above conditions currently exist. 20. These above barriers relate to and impact Plaintiff’s disability. Plaintiff personally 2 encountered these barriers. 3 21. As a wheelchair user, Plaintiff benefits from and is entitled to use wheelchair 4 accessible facilities. The above inaccessible conditions deny Plaintiff full and equal 5 access. 6 22. Defendants have failed to maintain in working and useable conditions those 7 features required to provide ready access to persons with disabilities. 8 23. All of barriers identified above are easily removed without much difficulty or 9 expense. They are the types of barriers identified by the Department of Justice for 10 attention and these barriers are readily achievable to remove. However, should full 11 compliance not be readily achievable, there are numerous alternative accommodations 12 that could be made to provide a greater level of access than presently exists. 13 24. Given the obvious and blatant nature of the barriers and violations alleged herein, 14 Plaintiff alleges that defendants have failed to take the necessary steps to ensure removal 15 of non-compliant architectural barriers as required by 42 U.S.C. § 12182(2)(A)(iv) and 16 on information and belief, alleges that there are other violations and barriers on the site 17 that relate to his disability. Plaintiff will amend the complaint to provide proper notice 18 regarding the scope of this lawsuit once he conducts a site inspection. Plaintiff seeks to have all barriers related to his disability remedied. See Doran v. 7-Eleven, 524 F.3d 1034 19 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that once a plaintiff encounters one barrier at a site, he can sue to 20 have all barriers that relate to his disability removed regardless of whether he personally 21 encountered them). 22 25. As the ADA has existed since 1990, and the facility is still non-compliant, 23 Plaintiff alleges the above conditions are the result of either a policy failure or systematic 24 negligence such that only regular audits of the facility architecture and policies will 25 ensure future compliance. 26 26. Plaintiff is currently deterred from returning to the Store due to knowledge of the 27 existing barriers and uncertainty about the existence of yet other barriers on the site. If the 28 barriers are not removed, Plaintiff will face unlawful and discriminatory barriers again. 4 Verified Complaint DocuSign Envelope ID: FF3890DC-EDFA-4A5C-8E24-F233834CFEEF 1 Plaintiff will return to the Store after the conclusion of the case to avail himself of its benefits and to confirm compliance with the disability access laws once it is represented 2 to him the Store and its facilities are accessible. 3 CCP § 425.50 Compliance Statements: 4 27. Compliance testing is recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court and civil rights 5 advocates as a necessary method of enforcing civil rights laws. 6 28. Pursuant to CCP § 425.50(a)(4)(i) Plaintiff states they qualify as a high frequency 7 litigant as defined by CCP § 425.55. Plaintiff is an ADA advocate and tester as that term 8 is understood and protected under federal law. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 9 363 (1982); C.R. Educ. & Enf’t Ctr. v. Hosp. Properties Tr., 867 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 10 2017). 11 29. Pursuant to CCP § 425.50(a)(4)(ii), Plaintiff states in the year preceding the 12 drafting of this complaint they filed approximately 646 lawsuits alleging violations of 13 construction-related accessibility standards. 14 30. Pursuant to CCP § 425.50(a)(4)(iii), Plaintiff states on the date alleged above, 15 Plaintiff was in the area for shopping and went to the Store to have something to snack 16 on. Plaintiff was in the area around the business engaged in constitutionally protected 17 tester activities visiting businesses in the same manner as a potential customer to confirm their compliance with state and federal laws. Plaintiff’s encounter with the above listed 18 conditions resulted in a denial of full and equal access under the ADA. 19 31. Pursuant to CCP § 425.50(a)(4)(iv), Plaintiff states Plaintiff visited the subject 20 business for the purpose of testing facility compliance with accessibility laws with the 21 intention to use the Benefits of the facility in the same manner as a customer. 22 32. At the conclusion of this suit and after being informed that the barriers 23 complained of have been removed, in furtherance of Plaintiff’s tester motivations, 24 Plaintiff intends to return to the business to confirm accessibility of the above conditions. 25 I. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 26 (On behalf of Plaintiff and against all Defendants.) Cal. Civ. Code § 51-53. 27 33. Plaintiff re-pleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth again herein, 28 the allegations contained in all prior paragraphs of this complaint. 5 Verified Complaint DocuSign Envelope ID: FF3890DC-EDFA-4A5C-8E24-F233834CFEEF 1 34. Under the ADA, it is an act of discrimination to fail to ensure that the privileges, advantages, accommodations, facilities, goods and services of any place of public 2 accommodation are offered on a full and equal basis by anyone who owns, leases, or 3 operates a place of public accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Discrimination is 4 defined, inter alia, as follows: 5 a. A failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or 6 procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford goods, 7 services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to 8 individuals with disabilities, unless the accommodation would work a 9 fundamental alteration of those services and facilities. 42 U.S.C. § 10 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii). 11 b. A failure to remove architectural barriers where such removal is readily 12 achievable. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). Barriers are defined by 13 reference to the ADA Standards. 14 c. A failure to make alterations in such a manner that, to the maximum extent 15 feasible, the altered portions of the facility are readily accessible to and 16 usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use 17 wheelchairs or to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible, the path of travel to the altered area and the bathrooms, telephones, and drinking 18 fountains serving the altered area, are readily accessible to and usable by 19 individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2). 20 35. When a business provides sales counters, it must provide accessible sales 21 counters. 22 36. Here, accessible sales counters was not provided in conformance with the ADA 23 Standards. 24 37. When a business provides door hardware, it must provide accessible door 25 hardware. 26 38. Here, accessible door hardware was not provided in conformance with the ADA 27 Standards. 28 39. The Safe Harbor provisions of the 2010 Standards are not applicable here because 6 Verified Complaint DocuSign Envelope ID: FF3890DC-EDFA-4A5C-8E24-F233834CFEEF 1 the conditions challenged in this lawsuit do not comply with the 1991 Standards. 40. A public accommodation must maintain in operable working condition those 2 features of its facilities and equipment that are required to be readily accessible to and 3 usable by persons with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 36.211(a). 4 41. Here, the failure to ensure that accessible facilities were available and ready to be 5 used by Plaintiff is a violation of the law. 6 42. The Unruh Act provides that any violation of the ADA is a violation of the Unruh 7 Act. Cal. Civ. Code, § 51(f). 8 43. Defendants' acts and omissions, as herein alleged, have violated the Unruh Act 9 by, inter alia, denying, or aiding, or inciting the denial of, Plaintiff’s rights to full and 10 equal use of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services offered. 11 44. Because the violation of the ADA resulted in a denial of full and equal access to 12 Plaintiff, Defendants are also each responsible for statutory damages, i.e., a civil penalty. 13 Civ. Code § 55.56(a)-(c). 14 II. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA DISABLED 15 PERSONS ACT (On behalf of Plaintiff and against all Defendants.) Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1. 16 45. Plaintiff repleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth again herein, 17 the allegations contained in all prior paragraphs of this complaint. The California 18 Disabled Persons Act (“CDPA”) guarantees, inter alia, that persons with disabilities are 19 entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in 20 all business establishments of every kind whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the State 21 of California. Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1. 22 46. The CDPA provides that any violation of the ADA is a violation of the CDPA. 23 Cal. Civ. Code, § 54.1(d). 24 47. Defendants' acts and omissions, as herein alleged, have violated the CDPA by, 25 inter alia, denying, or aiding, or inciting the denial of, Plaintiff’s rights to full and equal 26 use of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services offered. 27 48. Because the violation of the ADA resulted in a denial of full and equal access to 28 Plaintiff, Defendants are also each responsible for statutory damages, i.e., a civil penalty. 7 Verified Complaint DocuSign Envelope ID: FF3890DC-EDFA-4A5C-8E24-F233834CFEEF 1 Cal. Civ. Code § 54.3. PRAYER: 2 Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that this Court award damages and provide relief as 3 follows: 4 1. For injunctive relief, compelling Defendants to remove all presently existing 5 architectural barriers as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh 6 Civil Rights Act.2 7 2. For injunctive relief requiring that Defendants obtain biennial Certified Access 8 Specialist (“CASp”) architectural inspections of the subject facility to verify on-going 9 ADA compliance and follow those inspection’s recommendations of all readily 10 achievable barrier removal. 11 3. For injunctive relief requiring implementation of accessibility policies and 12 requiring annual employee training on providing full and equal access to clients or 13 customers with disabilities. 14 4. Damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act or California Disabled Persons Act, 15 which provide for up to treble actual damages and a statutory minimum of $4,000 or 16 $1,000 respectively per violation of each Act. While Plaintiff may prevail on each act 17 individually, Plaintiff only seeks monetary recovery under whichever act results in the greatest damages, to be determined at trial. 18 5. Reasonable attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit, pursuant to Cal. 19 Civ. Code § 52 and or § 54.1. 20 21 Dated: April 5, 2024 THE REDDY LAW FIRM LLC 22 23 24 By: ______________________ [7 25 Prathima Reddy Price, Esq. 26 Attorney for Plaintiff 27 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. 8 Verified Complaint DocuSign Envelope ID: FF3890DC-EDFA-4A5C-8E24-F233834CFEEF 1 VERIFICATION I am a party to this action, and I have read the complaint titled Garcia v. Jun Sik Yoon, 2 et al. and know its content. The facts stated in the complaint are true and based on my 3 own knowledge, except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to 4 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: 4/5/2024 Brando Garcia 10 Dated: ______________ By: __________________ 11 Orlando Garcia 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 Verified Complaint