Preview
II
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50
1 Eric G. Calhoun SBN 300280
Shiv Samtani SBN: 320822
2 CALHOUN & ASSOCIATES
453 S. Spring Street, Suite 400
3 Los Angeles, California 90013
Telephone: (310) 237-5380
4 Facsimile: (818) 805-5403
Email: shiv@ecalhounlaw.com
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
10
11
LUIS CALDERON, ) Case No.
12 )
Plaintiff, ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR:
13 )
vs. ) VIOLATIONS OF THE UNRUH ACT
14 ) (CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 51, et seq.);
HOWARD H. LEE, TRUSTEE OF THE ) AND REQUESTS FOR DECLARATORY
15 HOWARD & PAULINE LEE LIVING TRUST; ) RELIEF, INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES
PAULINE M. LEE, TRUSTEE OF THE )
16 HOWARD & PAULINE LEE LIVING TRUST; ) ACTION SUBJECT TO THE
JAE HWAN LEE, A/K/A JAY HWAN LEE; ) SUPPLEMENTAL FEE IN
17 JUNG LEE and DOES ONE through TEN, ) GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 70616.5
Inclusive, )
18 ) JUDGE:
Defendants. )
19 ) DEPT.:
)
20 ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
)
21
Plaintiff Luis Calderon ("Plaintiff") alleges as follows:
22
I.
23
INTRODUCTION
24
1. Plaintiff Luis Calderon is a functionally blind individual.
25
2. Plaintiff sought to patronize a shopping center containing a El Corredor Restaurant
26
#2 and other businesses and restaurants (the "Businesses") located at 1668 W. Adams Boulevard,
27
Los Angeles, California 90007 (the "Property"). Upon information and belief, the Property is jointly
28
1
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
II
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50
1 owned by defendant Howard H. Lee, Trustee of the Howard & Pauline Lee Living Trust; defendant
2 Pauline M. Lee, Trustee of the Howard & Pauline Lee Living Trust; and defendant Jae Hwan Lee
3 a/k/a Jay Hwan Lee and defendant Jung Lee (collectively, the "Defendants"). However, there was
4 no accessible route on the Property leading to and from the Businesses and there were no compliant
5 detectable warnings required by Title 24 § 11B-247.1 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations
6 (Title 24 is commonly referred to as the "California Building Code" or "CBC".) In addition, the lack
7 of an accessible path of travel (i.e. accessible route) at the Property is a violation of the Americans
8 with Disabilities Act ("ADA") 2010 Standards and therefore per se violation of the Unruh Civil
9 Rights Act ("Unruh Act"), as further described below.
10 3. The lack of an accessible route, such as failing to provide compliant detectable
11 warnings and striped path of travel, results in unnecessary risk to Plaintiff of potentially severe
12 injuries. Plaintiff regularly visits businesses and navigates unfamiliar parking lots, sidewalks, ramps
13 and crossings. Unlike most pedestrians and visitors, the blind and visually impaired cannot rely upon
14 visual cues that they are about to enter or cross a potentially hazardous area. In an effort to improve
15 accessibility to mobility impaired individuals, curbs are required to be eliminated and ramps
16 installed in the accessible route. The absence of curbs, railings or other elements has made it difficult
17 for blind pedestrians to locate the boundary between the sidewalk, street and other hazardous
18 vehicular areas. The lack of definitive indicators of these boundaries has placed visually impaired
19 pedestrians at risk and created a need for compliant detectable warnings or other elements to alert
20 them they are entering a hazardous area.
21 4. Further increasing the danger, the proliferation of hybrid and electric cars may save
22 energy but run much quieter than gas powered vehicles. This makes entering unknown vehicular
23 areas more dangerous to blind and visually impaired pedestrians who rely on the sound of a
24 combustion engine for guidance in crossing or entering vehicular areas.
25 5. The CBC has long recognized the inherent dangers hazardous areas pose to blind and
26 visually impaired pedestrians and has required that compliant detectable warnings be installed since
27 April 1, 1994. In California, the type of compliant detectable warnings required is called truncated
28 domes.
2
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
II
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50
1 6. The lack of compliant detectable warnings, railings or other elements at the Property,
2 as required by the CBC, and lack of an accessible route, as required by the ADA and CBC, creates
3 an unnecessary risk of injury to blind and visually impaired persons. Unless ordered by this Court
4 to bring the Property into compliance with state law, and to periodically maintain the Property to
5 ensure continued compliance, Defendants will likely continue to discriminate against blind and
6 visually impaired individuals such as Plaintiff with respect to the services offered by the Businesses
7 operated on the Property.
8 7. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Property violates state law as more fully
9 described below, an injunction requiring Defendants to modify the Property so that it is fully
10 accessible to, and independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, along with a
11 period during which the court will maintain continuing jurisdiction to ensure that Defendants
12 remains in compliance with the law, damages as allowed by statute, and attorney's fees.
13 II.
14 PARTIES
15 8. Plaintiff Luis Calderon is, and at all times relevant hereto, was a resident of
16 California.
17 9. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Luis Calderon may be considered a high
18 frequency litigant as that term is defined in Section 425.55(b) of the California Code of Civil
19 Procedure.
20 10. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Luis Calderon has filed 33 complaints alleging
21 a construction-related accessibility violation within the 12-month period preceding the month in
22 which this complaint was verified.
23 11. Upon information and belief, Defendant Howard H. Lee, Trustee of the Howard &
24 Pauline Lee Living Trust, is an individual who may be served at 1244 Via Del Rey, South Pasadena,
25 California 91030-3629.
26 12. Upon information and belief, Defendant Pauline M. Lee, Trustee of the Howard &
27 Pauline Lee Living Trust, is an individual who may be served at 1244 Via Del Rey, South Pasadena,
28 California 91030-3629.
3
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
II
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50
1 13. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jae Hwan Lee a/k/a Jay Hwan Lee, is an
2 individual who may be served at 869 South Ardmore Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005.
3 14. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jung Lee is an individual who may be served
4 at 869 South Ardmore Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005.
5 15. Upon information and belief, said Defendants jointly own, operate, manage, and/or
6 have substantial control over the Property, including the interior and exterior of the building, the
7 accessible route, the parking lot and all spaces adjacent to the Businesses located at 1668 W. Adams
8 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90007.
9 16. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names or capacities of the Defendants sued herein
10 under the fictitious names DOES ONE through TEN inclusive and as such they are sued herein
11 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 474. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this
12 complaint to add their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes
13 and thereon alleges that each of the fictitious Defendants is responsible to Plaintiff in some manner
14 for the injuries and damages alleged in this complaint.
15 17. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, each of the Defendants was the
16 agent, employee and/or joint venture of each of the remaining Defendants and was acting within the
17 course and scope of that agency, employment and/or joint venture.
18 III.
19 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
20 18. This court has jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims asserted herein pursuant to
21 California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq. Plaintiff's claims are based on the lack of compliant detectable
22 warnings as required by Health & Safety Code § 19955 et seq. and the CBC and lack of accessible
23 route and other violations of the 2010 Guidelines of the ADA. Plaintiff does not seek relief directly
24 under any federal laws.
25 19. Venue is proper in this court and is founded on the fact that the real property, which
26 is the subject of this action, is located in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, and that
27 Plaintiff's claims asserted herein arose in Los Angeles County.
28
4
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
II
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50
1 IV.
2 STATEMENT OF FACTS
3 20. Luis Calderon is functionally blind and therefore visually impaired.
4 21. Upon information and belief, the Businesses are restaurants and stores, open to the
5 public, which are intended for nonresidential use and whose operation affects commerce. The
6 Businesses are business establishments under California Civil Code sections 51 and 51.5 and is a
7 "public accommodations" pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 19955.
8 22. Plaintiff Luis Calderon lives in reasonable proximity to, and therefore frequents, the
9 businesses in or around the area in which the Property is located. Plaintiff desired to access
10 Defendants' Property for personal purposes, including to eat and/or shop.
11 23. Plaintiff visited one or more of the Businesses located on Defendants Property in
12 March 2023 and April 2023.
13 24. Each time Plaintiff visited the Property, there were no curbs, railings or compliant
14 detectable warnings in the accessible route where it abutted or crossed into a vehicular area at the
15 Property.
16 25. Additionally, each time Plaintiff visited the Property, Defendants failed to provide
17 an accessible route to the Property, including but not limited to:
18 a) There were vertical changes in level in the accessible route that exceeded 1/4
19 inch high and/or changes in level exceeding 1/2 inch high with a slope steeper than 1:2.
20 b) There were no detectable warnings installed on the curb ramps.
21 c) There was no accessible route connecting the accessible buildings, accessible
22 facilities, accessible elements, and accessible spaces within the same site.
23 26. Due to these barriers, Plaintiff experienced difficulty, discomfort and/or
24 embarrassment when attempting to access the Property.
25 27. Plaintiff anticipates having a Certified Access Specialist ("CASp") inspect the
26 Property to verify these violations and identify any other barriers to access. While Plaintiff may not
27 have personally encountered all of the violations that may be identified during the inspection by a
28 CASp inspector, he has standing to seek remediation of all barriers related to his disabilities. (See
5
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
II
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50
1 Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2008); Langer v. Deguzman, 2017
2 WL 4500783 at *4, No. 2:15-cv-09493 (C.D. Cal., July 28, 2016) (standing to sue for injunctive
3 relief includes all barriers in the place of public accommodation related to plaintiff's disability,
4 including those identified by an expert's site inspection)).
5 V.
6 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
7 (Against All Defendants)
8 28. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each of the preceding paragraphs as
9 if fully set forth herein.
10 29. Blind and visually impaired persons are disabled because they have a physical
11 impairment that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities. (Gov. Code § 12926;
12 see also Enyart v. National Conference of Bar Examiners, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2011) 823 F. Supp. 2d
13 995, 1014). Plaintiff is visually impaired and therefore qualifies as disabled.
14 30. Defendants' Property and the Businesses located thereon are "business
15 establishments" as well as public accommodations or facilities and, as such, must comply with the
16 provisions of the Unruh Act. (Civ. Code, § 51 et seq.; Health & Safety Code § 19955.)
17 31. Pursuant to the California Health & Safety Code § 19955(a), Access to Public
18 Accommodations by Physically Handicapped Persons "'public accommodation or facilities' means
19 a building, structure, facility, complex, or improved area which is used by the general public"
20 built with private funds. The California Supreme Court held the "term 'business establishments' was
21 used in the broadest sense reasonably possible." (Burks v. Poppy Construction Co., 57 Cal.2d 463
22 at 468). Moreover, Health & Safety Code § 19956.5 states "[a]ny curb or sidewalk intended for
23 public use that is constructed in this state with private funds shall conform to the provisions of
24 Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 4450) of Division 5 of Title 1 of the Government Code."
25 32. The CBC, Section 11B-247.1 et seq., requires detectable warnings that comply with
26 CBC, Section 11B-705.1, et seq., such as truncated domes, on curb ramps, islands or cut-through
27 medians and at all locations where a walkway is about to enter hazardous areas, such as a street or
28 parking lot. These detectable warnings are crucial to allow blind and visually impaired persons to
6
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
II
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50
1 know when they are entering a vehicular area and to prevent them from unknowingly stepping into
2 oncoming traffic.
3 33. A violation of a CBC that denies access to a disabled individual has been found to
4 constitute a violation of both the Unruh Act. (Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's LLC,
5 165 Cal.App.4th 571, 585-86, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 144 (2008) (citations omitted.))
6 34. A failure to provide compliant detectable warnings as required by the CBC renders
7 a place of public accommodation unsafe, thereby denying full and equal access to blind and visually
8 impaired persons, which constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act (Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (f);
9 Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's LLC, 165 Cal.App.4th 571, 585-86, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d
10 144 (2008)).
11 35. The failure to provide compliant detectable warnings in the accessible route where
12 the accessible route abuts or crosses into a vehicular area and/or separate the walking surfaces by
13 curbs, railings or other elements between the pedestrian areas and vehicular areas is a violation of
14 CBC 11B-247.1.2.5.
15 36. An accessible route is required by both the CBC, Sections 11B-206, et seq. and ADA
16 Section 206, et seq. Additionally:
17 a) There were also vertical changes in level in the accessible route that exceeded
18 1/4 inch high and/or changes in level exceeding 1/2 inch high with a slope steeper than 1:2 in
19 violation of Sections 303 and 403.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards and Section 4.5.2 of the 1991 ADA
20 Standards, which are per se violations of the Unruh Act, along with violations of the CBC 11B-
21 403.3.
22 b) The failure to install detectable warnings on the curb ramp is a violation of
23 CBC 11B-247.1.2.2, which is a per se violation of the Unruh Act.
24 c) The failure to provide an accessible route connecting the accessible buildings,
25 accessible facilities, accessible elements, and accessible spaces within the same site, violates
26 Section 206.2.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards and Section 4.1.2(2) of the 1991 ADA Standards,
27 which are per se violations of the Unruh Act.
28
7
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
II
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50
1 37. Plaintiff personally encountered these barriers at the Property and thus experienced
2 difficulty, discomfort and/or embarrassment when accessing the premises.
3 38. Plaintiff anticipates having a CASp inspector inspect the Property to verify these
4 violations and identify other barriers to access. While Plaintiff may not have personally encountered
5 all of the violations identified by a CASp inspector, he has standing to seek remediation of all
6 barriers related to his disabilities. (See Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2008);
7 Langer v. Deguzman, 2017 WL 4500783 at *4, No. 2:15-cv-09493 (C.D. Cal., July 28, 2016)
8 (standing to sue for injunctive relief includes all barriers in the place of public accommodation
9 related to plaintiff's disability, including those identified by an expert's site inspection)).
10 A. VIOLATION OF UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (Civ. Code § 51 et seq.)
11 39. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each of the preceding paragraphs as
12 if fully set forth herein.
13 40. The Unruh Act guarantees, inter alia, that persons with disabilities are entitled to full
14 and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business
15 establishments of every kind whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the State of California. (Civ.
16 Code, § 51, subd. (b).)
17 41. Plaintiff makes a claim herein for violation of the Unruh Act resulting from
18 Defendants failure to ensure the accessible paths to and from the Businesses located on the Property
19 complied with the requirements of the CBC.
20 42. Upon information and belief, the Property has undergone construction and/or
21 "alterations, structural repairs, or additions," since detectable warnings were first required under
22 California law, subjecting them to disabled access requirements per Health & Safety Code
23 §§ 19955-19959 et seq., and the regulations of the CBC.
24 43. Detectable warnings have been required under California law since at least 1994.
25 Upon information and belief, Defendants was aware of the safety related requirements for compliant
26 detectable warnings which are required by CBC § 11B-247.1 et seq., to protect blind and visually
27 impaired persons prior to the dates Plaintiff visited the Businesses located on the Property. In
28 disregard of the safety of Plaintiff and other blind and visually impaired persons, Defendants failed
8
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
II
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50
1 to install the required compliant detectable warnings at the time the accessible paths were
2 constructed or during any subsequent alterations, modifications or repairs to the Property.
3 Defendants failure to abide by disability regulations intended to ensure the safety of blind and
4 visually impaired persons which have been in place for more than 20 years shows an intentional and
5 conscious disregard for the safety of such persons and of the required disability regulations.
6 44. Each year the Governor of the State of California publicly proclaims October 15 as
7 "White Cane Safety Day" and proclaims that citizens of the state are urged and reminded to keep
8 safe and functional for the disabled persons (especially blind persons) places of public
9 accommodation including sidewalks, walkways and public buildings.
10 45. The failure to provide compliant detectable warnings in the accessible route where
11 the accessible route abuts or crosses into a vehicular area and/or separate the walking surfaces by
12 curbs, railings or other elements between the pedestrian areas and vehicular areas is a violation of
13 CBC 11B-247.1.2.5.
14 46. A primary accessible route from the public sidewalk to the entrance of the Businesses
15 is required by the ADA and the CBC. Additionally, an accessible route is required from the
16 accessible parking space to the building entrance.
17 47. There were also vertical changes in level in the accessible route that exceeded 1/4
18 inch high and/or changes in level exceeding 1/2 inch high with a slope steeper than 1:2 in violation
19 of Sections 303.2 and 403.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, Section 4.5.2 of the 1991 ADA Standards,
20 and CBC 11B-303, which are per se violations of the Unruh Act. (See Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the
21 Arts, 370 F.3d 837, 847 (9th Cir. 2004).)
22 48. The failure to install detectable warnings on the curb ramp violates of CBC 11B-
23 247.1.2.2, which is a per se violation of the Unruh Act.
24 49. The failure to provide an accessible route connecting the accessible buildings,
25 accessible facilities, accessible elements, and accessible spaces within the same site, violates
26 Section 206.2.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, and Section 4.1.2(2) of the 1991 ADA Standards,
27 which are per se violation of the Unruh Act.
28
9
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
II
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50
1 50. Due to these barriers, Plaintiff was denied full and equal access to Defendants'
2 Property and experienced difficulty, discomfort and/or embarrassment.
3 51. Plaintiff seeks to recover statutory damages of $4,000 for each of the two instances
4 he encountered a violation of the Unruh Act, as well as attorney's fees and costs, as provided in Civil
5 Code Section 52.
6 52. Defendants had ample time between Plaintiff's visits to the Businesses to remediate
7 the barriers to access.
8 53. The California legislature recently acknowledged the importance of detectable
9 warnings in access routes where they cross or abut vehicular areas, excluding them from the list of
10 "technical violations" of construction-related barriers to accessibility that lead to reduced statutory
11 damages. (See Civil Code §55.56(e)(1)(G).)
12 B. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Civil Code § 52(c)(3))
13 54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each of the preceding paragraphs as
14 if fully set forth herein.
15 55. Upon information and belief, Defendants violated one or more of the requirements
16 of the CBC and the ADA, as identified above, at the time Plaintiff visited the Businesses and
17 continues to violate those requirements as of the date of filing of this action which violates the Unruh
18 Act.
19 56. By these violations, Defendants has discriminated against Plaintiff in that Defendants
20 has denied him full and equal access to the Businesses, places of public accommodation, located on
21 the Property. The discrimination and denial of rights by Defendants has caused Plaintiff harm and
22 will continue to cause Plaintiff, and other blind and visually impaired persons, harm in the future if
23 the Property is not brought into compliance and regularly maintained.
24 57. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Property violates the Unruh Act as described
25 above and an injunction pursuant to Section 52(c)(3) of the California Civil Code requiring
26 Defendants to remediate each of the violations of the Unruh Act identified herein and in Plaintiff's
27 expert report. Plaintiff anticipates having a CASP inspector inspect the Property to verify these
28 violations and identify other barriers to access. Plaintiff has standing to seek remediation of all
10
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
II
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50
1 barriers related to his disabilities. (See Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2008);
2 Langer v. Deguzman, 2017 WL 4500783 at *4, No. 2:15-cv-09493 (C.D. Cal., July 28, 2016)
3 (standing to sue for injunctive relief includes all barriers in the place of public accommodation
4 related to plaintiff's disability, including those identified by an expert's site inspection)).
5 58. Violations of the ADA are per se violations of the Unruh Act.
6 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
7 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
8 a. A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action Defendants was in
9 violation of the specific requirements of the Unruh Act as described above;
10 b. A permanent injunction pursuant to Civil Code Section 52(c)(3) which directs
11 Defendants to take all steps necessary to bring the Property into full compliance with
12 the requirements of the Unruh Act, as set forth herein, and which further directs that
13 the Court shall retain jurisdiction for a period to be determined after Defendants
14 certifies that the Property is fully in compliance with the relevant requirements of the
15 Unruh Act to ensure that Defendants has adopted and is following an institutional
16 policy that will in fact cause Defendants to remain in compliance with the law;
17 c. An award to Plaintiff of statutory damages, in an amount not less than $4,000 for
18 each of the two instances he encountered a violation of the Unruh Act, pursuant to
19 Civ. Code Section 52(a);
20 d. Payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Civ. Code
21 Section 52(b)(3);
22 e. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rates; and
23 f. The provision of whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and
24 appropriate.
25 CALHOUN & ASSOCIATES
26
Dated: 5.2.2024
27 Shiv Samtani
Attorneys for Plaintiff
28
11
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
II
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50
1
2 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
3 Plaintiff hereby requests a jury trial on any and all claims so triable.
4 CALHOUN & ASSOCIATES
5
Dated: 5.2.2024
6 Shiv Samtani
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
II
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50
1 VERIFICATION
2 I, Luis Calderon, am the Plaintiff in this action. I have read the foregoing VERIFIED
3 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (CAL. CIV. CODE
4 § 51 et seq.), AND REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES.
5 The matters stated in the foregoing document concerning me are true of my own knowledge, except
6 as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe
7 them to be true.
8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
9 is true and correct.
2/9/2024
10 Executed on _________________, at Los Angeles, California.
11
12
Luis Calderon
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Preview
II DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50 1 Eric G. Calhoun SBN 300280 Shiv Samtani SBN: 320822 2 CALHOUN & ASSOCIATES 453 S. Spring Street, Suite 400 3 Los Angeles, California 90013 Telephone: (310) 237-5380 4 Facsimile: (818) 805-5403 Email: shiv@ecalhounlaw.com 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 11 LUIS CALDERON, ) Case No. 12 ) Plaintiff, ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: 13 ) vs. ) VIOLATIONS OF THE UNRUH ACT 14 ) (CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 51, et seq.); HOWARD H. LEE, TRUSTEE OF THE ) AND REQUESTS FOR DECLARATORY 15 HOWARD & PAULINE LEE LIVING TRUST; ) RELIEF, INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES PAULINE M. LEE, TRUSTEE OF THE ) 16 HOWARD & PAULINE LEE LIVING TRUST; ) ACTION SUBJECT TO THE JAE HWAN LEE, A/K/A JAY HWAN LEE; ) SUPPLEMENTAL FEE IN 17 JUNG LEE and DOES ONE through TEN, ) GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 70616.5 Inclusive, ) 18 ) JUDGE: Defendants. ) 19 ) DEPT.: ) 20 ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ) 21 Plaintiff Luis Calderon ("Plaintiff") alleges as follows: 22 I. 23 INTRODUCTION 24 1. Plaintiff Luis Calderon is a functionally blind individual. 25 2. Plaintiff sought to patronize a shopping center containing a El Corredor Restaurant 26 #2 and other businesses and restaurants (the "Businesses") located at 1668 W. Adams Boulevard, 27 Los Angeles, California 90007 (the "Property"). Upon information and belief, the Property is jointly 28 1 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND II DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50 1 owned by defendant Howard H. Lee, Trustee of the Howard & Pauline Lee Living Trust; defendant 2 Pauline M. Lee, Trustee of the Howard & Pauline Lee Living Trust; and defendant Jae Hwan Lee 3 a/k/a Jay Hwan Lee and defendant Jung Lee (collectively, the "Defendants"). However, there was 4 no accessible route on the Property leading to and from the Businesses and there were no compliant 5 detectable warnings required by Title 24 § 11B-247.1 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations 6 (Title 24 is commonly referred to as the "California Building Code" or "CBC".) In addition, the lack 7 of an accessible path of travel (i.e. accessible route) at the Property is a violation of the Americans 8 with Disabilities Act ("ADA") 2010 Standards and therefore per se violation of the Unruh Civil 9 Rights Act ("Unruh Act"), as further described below. 10 3. The lack of an accessible route, such as failing to provide compliant detectable 11 warnings and striped path of travel, results in unnecessary risk to Plaintiff of potentially severe 12 injuries. Plaintiff regularly visits businesses and navigates unfamiliar parking lots, sidewalks, ramps 13 and crossings. Unlike most pedestrians and visitors, the blind and visually impaired cannot rely upon 14 visual cues that they are about to enter or cross a potentially hazardous area. In an effort to improve 15 accessibility to mobility impaired individuals, curbs are required to be eliminated and ramps 16 installed in the accessible route. The absence of curbs, railings or other elements has made it difficult 17 for blind pedestrians to locate the boundary between the sidewalk, street and other hazardous 18 vehicular areas. The lack of definitive indicators of these boundaries has placed visually impaired 19 pedestrians at risk and created a need for compliant detectable warnings or other elements to alert 20 them they are entering a hazardous area. 21 4. Further increasing the danger, the proliferation of hybrid and electric cars may save 22 energy but run much quieter than gas powered vehicles. This makes entering unknown vehicular 23 areas more dangerous to blind and visually impaired pedestrians who rely on the sound of a 24 combustion engine for guidance in crossing or entering vehicular areas. 25 5. The CBC has long recognized the inherent dangers hazardous areas pose to blind and 26 visually impaired pedestrians and has required that compliant detectable warnings be installed since 27 April 1, 1994. In California, the type of compliant detectable warnings required is called truncated 28 domes. 2 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND II DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50 1 6. The lack of compliant detectable warnings, railings or other elements at the Property, 2 as required by the CBC, and lack of an accessible route, as required by the ADA and CBC, creates 3 an unnecessary risk of injury to blind and visually impaired persons. Unless ordered by this Court 4 to bring the Property into compliance with state law, and to periodically maintain the Property to 5 ensure continued compliance, Defendants will likely continue to discriminate against blind and 6 visually impaired individuals such as Plaintiff with respect to the services offered by the Businesses 7 operated on the Property. 8 7. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Property violates state law as more fully 9 described below, an injunction requiring Defendants to modify the Property so that it is fully 10 accessible to, and independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals, along with a 11 period during which the court will maintain continuing jurisdiction to ensure that Defendants 12 remains in compliance with the law, damages as allowed by statute, and attorney's fees. 13 II. 14 PARTIES 15 8. Plaintiff Luis Calderon is, and at all times relevant hereto, was a resident of 16 California. 17 9. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Luis Calderon may be considered a high 18 frequency litigant as that term is defined in Section 425.55(b) of the California Code of Civil 19 Procedure. 20 10. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Luis Calderon has filed 33 complaints alleging 21 a construction-related accessibility violation within the 12-month period preceding the month in 22 which this complaint was verified. 23 11. Upon information and belief, Defendant Howard H. Lee, Trustee of the Howard & 24 Pauline Lee Living Trust, is an individual who may be served at 1244 Via Del Rey, South Pasadena, 25 California 91030-3629. 26 12. Upon information and belief, Defendant Pauline M. Lee, Trustee of the Howard & 27 Pauline Lee Living Trust, is an individual who may be served at 1244 Via Del Rey, South Pasadena, 28 California 91030-3629. 3 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND II DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50 1 13. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jae Hwan Lee a/k/a Jay Hwan Lee, is an 2 individual who may be served at 869 South Ardmore Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005. 3 14. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jung Lee is an individual who may be served 4 at 869 South Ardmore Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005. 5 15. Upon information and belief, said Defendants jointly own, operate, manage, and/or 6 have substantial control over the Property, including the interior and exterior of the building, the 7 accessible route, the parking lot and all spaces adjacent to the Businesses located at 1668 W. Adams 8 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90007. 9 16. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names or capacities of the Defendants sued herein 10 under the fictitious names DOES ONE through TEN inclusive and as such they are sued herein 11 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 474. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this 12 complaint to add their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes 13 and thereon alleges that each of the fictitious Defendants is responsible to Plaintiff in some manner 14 for the injuries and damages alleged in this complaint. 15 17. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, each of the Defendants was the 16 agent, employee and/or joint venture of each of the remaining Defendants and was acting within the 17 course and scope of that agency, employment and/or joint venture. 18 III. 19 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20 18. This court has jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims asserted herein pursuant to 21 California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq. Plaintiff's claims are based on the lack of compliant detectable 22 warnings as required by Health & Safety Code § 19955 et seq. and the CBC and lack of accessible 23 route and other violations of the 2010 Guidelines of the ADA. Plaintiff does not seek relief directly 24 under any federal laws. 25 19. Venue is proper in this court and is founded on the fact that the real property, which 26 is the subject of this action, is located in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, and that 27 Plaintiff's claims asserted herein arose in Los Angeles County. 28 4 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND II DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50 1 IV. 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS 3 20. Luis Calderon is functionally blind and therefore visually impaired. 4 21. Upon information and belief, the Businesses are restaurants and stores, open to the 5 public, which are intended for nonresidential use and whose operation affects commerce. The 6 Businesses are business establishments under California Civil Code sections 51 and 51.5 and is a 7 "public accommodations" pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 19955. 8 22. Plaintiff Luis Calderon lives in reasonable proximity to, and therefore frequents, the 9 businesses in or around the area in which the Property is located. Plaintiff desired to access 10 Defendants' Property for personal purposes, including to eat and/or shop. 11 23. Plaintiff visited one or more of the Businesses located on Defendants Property in 12 March 2023 and April 2023. 13 24. Each time Plaintiff visited the Property, there were no curbs, railings or compliant 14 detectable warnings in the accessible route where it abutted or crossed into a vehicular area at the 15 Property. 16 25. Additionally, each time Plaintiff visited the Property, Defendants failed to provide 17 an accessible route to the Property, including but not limited to: 18 a) There were vertical changes in level in the accessible route that exceeded 1/4 19 inch high and/or changes in level exceeding 1/2 inch high with a slope steeper than 1:2. 20 b) There were no detectable warnings installed on the curb ramps. 21 c) There was no accessible route connecting the accessible buildings, accessible 22 facilities, accessible elements, and accessible spaces within the same site. 23 26. Due to these barriers, Plaintiff experienced difficulty, discomfort and/or 24 embarrassment when attempting to access the Property. 25 27. Plaintiff anticipates having a Certified Access Specialist ("CASp") inspect the 26 Property to verify these violations and identify any other barriers to access. While Plaintiff may not 27 have personally encountered all of the violations that may be identified during the inspection by a 28 CASp inspector, he has standing to seek remediation of all barriers related to his disabilities. (See 5 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND II DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50 1 Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2008); Langer v. Deguzman, 2017 2 WL 4500783 at *4, No. 2:15-cv-09493 (C.D. Cal., July 28, 2016) (standing to sue for injunctive 3 relief includes all barriers in the place of public accommodation related to plaintiff's disability, 4 including those identified by an expert's site inspection)). 5 V. 6 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 7 (Against All Defendants) 8 28. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each of the preceding paragraphs as 9 if fully set forth herein. 10 29. Blind and visually impaired persons are disabled because they have a physical 11 impairment that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities. (Gov. Code § 12926; 12 see also Enyart v. National Conference of Bar Examiners, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2011) 823 F. Supp. 2d 13 995, 1014). Plaintiff is visually impaired and therefore qualifies as disabled. 14 30. Defendants' Property and the Businesses located thereon are "business 15 establishments" as well as public accommodations or facilities and, as such, must comply with the 16 provisions of the Unruh Act. (Civ. Code, § 51 et seq.; Health & Safety Code § 19955.) 17 31. Pursuant to the California Health & Safety Code § 19955(a), Access to Public 18 Accommodations by Physically Handicapped Persons "'public accommodation or facilities' means 19 a building, structure, facility, complex, or improved area which is used by the general public" 20 built with private funds. The California Supreme Court held the "term 'business establishments' was 21 used in the broadest sense reasonably possible." (Burks v. Poppy Construction Co., 57 Cal.2d 463 22 at 468). Moreover, Health & Safety Code § 19956.5 states "[a]ny curb or sidewalk intended for 23 public use that is constructed in this state with private funds shall conform to the provisions of 24 Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 4450) of Division 5 of Title 1 of the Government Code." 25 32. The CBC, Section 11B-247.1 et seq., requires detectable warnings that comply with 26 CBC, Section 11B-705.1, et seq., such as truncated domes, on curb ramps, islands or cut-through 27 medians and at all locations where a walkway is about to enter hazardous areas, such as a street or 28 parking lot. These detectable warnings are crucial to allow blind and visually impaired persons to 6 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND II DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50 1 know when they are entering a vehicular area and to prevent them from unknowingly stepping into 2 oncoming traffic. 3 33. A violation of a CBC that denies access to a disabled individual has been found to 4 constitute a violation of both the Unruh Act. (Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's LLC, 5 165 Cal.App.4th 571, 585-86, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 144 (2008) (citations omitted.)) 6 34. A failure to provide compliant detectable warnings as required by the CBC renders 7 a place of public accommodation unsafe, thereby denying full and equal access to blind and visually 8 impaired persons, which constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act (Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (f); 9 Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's LLC, 165 Cal.App.4th 571, 585-86, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 10 144 (2008)). 11 35. The failure to provide compliant detectable warnings in the accessible route where 12 the accessible route abuts or crosses into a vehicular area and/or separate the walking surfaces by 13 curbs, railings or other elements between the pedestrian areas and vehicular areas is a violation of 14 CBC 11B-247.1.2.5. 15 36. An accessible route is required by both the CBC, Sections 11B-206, et seq. and ADA 16 Section 206, et seq. Additionally: 17 a) There were also vertical changes in level in the accessible route that exceeded 18 1/4 inch high and/or changes in level exceeding 1/2 inch high with a slope steeper than 1:2 in 19 violation of Sections 303 and 403.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards and Section 4.5.2 of the 1991 ADA 20 Standards, which are per se violations of the Unruh Act, along with violations of the CBC 11B- 21 403.3. 22 b) The failure to install detectable warnings on the curb ramp is a violation of 23 CBC 11B-247.1.2.2, which is a per se violation of the Unruh Act. 24 c) The failure to provide an accessible route connecting the accessible buildings, 25 accessible facilities, accessible elements, and accessible spaces within the same site, violates 26 Section 206.2.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards and Section 4.1.2(2) of the 1991 ADA Standards, 27 which are per se violations of the Unruh Act. 28 7 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND II DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50 1 37. Plaintiff personally encountered these barriers at the Property and thus experienced 2 difficulty, discomfort and/or embarrassment when accessing the premises. 3 38. Plaintiff anticipates having a CASp inspector inspect the Property to verify these 4 violations and identify other barriers to access. While Plaintiff may not have personally encountered 5 all of the violations identified by a CASp inspector, he has standing to seek remediation of all 6 barriers related to his disabilities. (See Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2008); 7 Langer v. Deguzman, 2017 WL 4500783 at *4, No. 2:15-cv-09493 (C.D. Cal., July 28, 2016) 8 (standing to sue for injunctive relief includes all barriers in the place of public accommodation 9 related to plaintiff's disability, including those identified by an expert's site inspection)). 10 A. VIOLATION OF UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (Civ. Code § 51 et seq.) 11 39. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each of the preceding paragraphs as 12 if fully set forth herein. 13 40. The Unruh Act guarantees, inter alia, that persons with disabilities are entitled to full 14 and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business 15 establishments of every kind whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the State of California. (Civ. 16 Code, § 51, subd. (b).) 17 41. Plaintiff makes a claim herein for violation of the Unruh Act resulting from 18 Defendants failure to ensure the accessible paths to and from the Businesses located on the Property 19 complied with the requirements of the CBC. 20 42. Upon information and belief, the Property has undergone construction and/or 21 "alterations, structural repairs, or additions," since detectable warnings were first required under 22 California law, subjecting them to disabled access requirements per Health & Safety Code 23 §§ 19955-19959 et seq., and the regulations of the CBC. 24 43. Detectable warnings have been required under California law since at least 1994. 25 Upon information and belief, Defendants was aware of the safety related requirements for compliant 26 detectable warnings which are required by CBC § 11B-247.1 et seq., to protect blind and visually 27 impaired persons prior to the dates Plaintiff visited the Businesses located on the Property. In 28 disregard of the safety of Plaintiff and other blind and visually impaired persons, Defendants failed 8 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND II DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50 1 to install the required compliant detectable warnings at the time the accessible paths were 2 constructed or during any subsequent alterations, modifications or repairs to the Property. 3 Defendants failure to abide by disability regulations intended to ensure the safety of blind and 4 visually impaired persons which have been in place for more than 20 years shows an intentional and 5 conscious disregard for the safety of such persons and of the required disability regulations. 6 44. Each year the Governor of the State of California publicly proclaims October 15 as 7 "White Cane Safety Day" and proclaims that citizens of the state are urged and reminded to keep 8 safe and functional for the disabled persons (especially blind persons) places of public 9 accommodation including sidewalks, walkways and public buildings. 10 45. The failure to provide compliant detectable warnings in the accessible route where 11 the accessible route abuts or crosses into a vehicular area and/or separate the walking surfaces by 12 curbs, railings or other elements between the pedestrian areas and vehicular areas is a violation of 13 CBC 11B-247.1.2.5. 14 46. A primary accessible route from the public sidewalk to the entrance of the Businesses 15 is required by the ADA and the CBC. Additionally, an accessible route is required from the 16 accessible parking space to the building entrance. 17 47. There were also vertical changes in level in the accessible route that exceeded 1/4 18 inch high and/or changes in level exceeding 1/2 inch high with a slope steeper than 1:2 in violation 19 of Sections 303.2 and 403.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards, Section 4.5.2 of the 1991 ADA Standards, 20 and CBC 11B-303, which are per se violations of the Unruh Act. (See Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the 21 Arts, 370 F.3d 837, 847 (9th Cir. 2004).) 22 48. The failure to install detectable warnings on the curb ramp violates of CBC 11B- 23 247.1.2.2, which is a per se violation of the Unruh Act. 24 49. The failure to provide an accessible route connecting the accessible buildings, 25 accessible facilities, accessible elements, and accessible spaces within the same site, violates 26 Section 206.2.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards, and Section 4.1.2(2) of the 1991 ADA Standards, 27 which are per se violation of the Unruh Act. 28 9 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND II DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50 1 50. Due to these barriers, Plaintiff was denied full and equal access to Defendants' 2 Property and experienced difficulty, discomfort and/or embarrassment. 3 51. Plaintiff seeks to recover statutory damages of $4,000 for each of the two instances 4 he encountered a violation of the Unruh Act, as well as attorney's fees and costs, as provided in Civil 5 Code Section 52. 6 52. Defendants had ample time between Plaintiff's visits to the Businesses to remediate 7 the barriers to access. 8 53. The California legislature recently acknowledged the importance of detectable 9 warnings in access routes where they cross or abut vehicular areas, excluding them from the list of 10 "technical violations" of construction-related barriers to accessibility that lead to reduced statutory 11 damages. (See Civil Code §55.56(e)(1)(G).) 12 B. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Civil Code § 52(c)(3)) 13 54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each of the preceding paragraphs as 14 if fully set forth herein. 15 55. Upon information and belief, Defendants violated one or more of the requirements 16 of the CBC and the ADA, as identified above, at the time Plaintiff visited the Businesses and 17 continues to violate those requirements as of the date of filing of this action which violates the Unruh 18 Act. 19 56. By these violations, Defendants has discriminated against Plaintiff in that Defendants 20 has denied him full and equal access to the Businesses, places of public accommodation, located on 21 the Property. The discrimination and denial of rights by Defendants has caused Plaintiff harm and 22 will continue to cause Plaintiff, and other blind and visually impaired persons, harm in the future if 23 the Property is not brought into compliance and regularly maintained. 24 57. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Property violates the Unruh Act as described 25 above and an injunction pursuant to Section 52(c)(3) of the California Civil Code requiring 26 Defendants to remediate each of the violations of the Unruh Act identified herein and in Plaintiff's 27 expert report. Plaintiff anticipates having a CASP inspector inspect the Property to verify these 28 violations and identify other barriers to access. Plaintiff has standing to seek remediation of all 10 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND II DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50 1 barriers related to his disabilities. (See Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2008); 2 Langer v. Deguzman, 2017 WL 4500783 at *4, No. 2:15-cv-09493 (C.D. Cal., July 28, 2016) 3 (standing to sue for injunctive relief includes all barriers in the place of public accommodation 4 related to plaintiff's disability, including those identified by an expert's site inspection)). 5 58. Violations of the ADA are per se violations of the Unruh Act. 6 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 7 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: 8 a. A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action Defendants was in 9 violation of the specific requirements of the Unruh Act as described above; 10 b. A permanent injunction pursuant to Civil Code Section 52(c)(3) which directs 11 Defendants to take all steps necessary to bring the Property into full compliance with 12 the requirements of the Unruh Act, as set forth herein, and which further directs that 13 the Court shall retain jurisdiction for a period to be determined after Defendants 14 certifies that the Property is fully in compliance with the relevant requirements of the 15 Unruh Act to ensure that Defendants has adopted and is following an institutional 16 policy that will in fact cause Defendants to remain in compliance with the law; 17 c. An award to Plaintiff of statutory damages, in an amount not less than $4,000 for 18 each of the two instances he encountered a violation of the Unruh Act, pursuant to 19 Civ. Code Section 52(a); 20 d. Payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Civ. Code 21 Section 52(b)(3); 22 e. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rates; and 23 f. The provision of whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and 24 appropriate. 25 CALHOUN & ASSOCIATES 26 Dated: 5.2.2024 27 Shiv Samtani Attorneys for Plaintiff 28 11 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND II DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50 1 2 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 3 Plaintiff hereby requests a jury trial on any and all claims so triable. 4 CALHOUN & ASSOCIATES 5 Dated: 5.2.2024 6 Shiv Samtani Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND II DocuSign Envelope ID: 9E2425B0-E76D-46FF-A85B-54138E213F50 1 VERIFICATION 2 I, Luis Calderon, am the Plaintiff in this action. I have read the foregoing VERIFIED 3 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (CAL. CIV. CODE 4 § 51 et seq.), AND REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES. 5 The matters stated in the foregoing document concerning me are true of my own knowledge, except 6 as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe 7 them to be true. 8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 9 is true and correct. 2/9/2024 10 Executed on _________________, at Los Angeles, California. 11 12 Luis Calderon 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND