Preview
DeMaria Law Firm, A.P.C.
Anthony N. DeMaria, #177894
ademaria@demarialawfirm.com
S. Nicole Tucker, #PL-508818
sntucker@demarialawfirm.com
1690 W. Shaw Ave. Suite 220 E-FILED
Fresno, California 93711 2/11/2021 2:34 PM
Telephone: (559) 206-2410 Superior Court of California
Facsimile:
\OOOQQMhUJN—I (559) 570-0126 County of Fresno
By: J. Nelson, Deputy
Attorneys for Defendant, State Center
Community College District
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO
ANITA REYES, Case No. 19CECGO3 826
Plaintiff, SEPARATE STATEMENT 0F
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN
v ,
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT, MADERA COMMUNITY Dfiuei May 4, 2021
COLLEGE CENTER and DOES 1-20, Tune: 3:30 RM.
Dept.: 403
Defendant.
Action Filed: October 21 ,
2019
NNNNNNNNN—tp—a—IHHHp—AHt—nn—n
Trial Date: Julv 19. 2021
mfiamthfloomflmM#WN'—‘C
COMES NOW, Defendant STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
(“Defendant” or “the District”), AND HEREBY SUBMITS THIS Separate Statement ofUndisputed
Material Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure section 437C ct seq. and Rule 3.1350(b), (c), & (d) of the California Rules of Court.
Through this Statement 0f Undisputed Material Facts, Defendant asks the Court to grant summary
adj udication and dismiss PlaintiffANITA REYES’s (“Plaintiff”) Third and Fourth Causes ofAction
of her Complaint against Defendant STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, on
the following grounds:
//
//
1
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action
(Violation 0f the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Section 51-53))
Defendant STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT is entitled to summary
\OOOflQM-bbJNH
adjudication for Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act for
the following reasons:
l: Defendant is a public educational entity as it is public community college district and
therefore, it isnot subj ect to the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
MOVING PARTIES’ UNDISPUTED MATERIAL VOPPOSING PARTY’s RESPONSE AND
FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE: SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant STATE
CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act by owning,
operating, and/or controlling the subject ramp out of
compliance with the Americans With Disabilities
Act and/or the California Code of Regulations.
Suggorting Evidence
Complaint, page 6. paragraph 26-27, attached as
Exhibit A to the Declaration of S. Nicole Tucker.
NNNNNNNNNn—nflp—Ir—an—Av—fit—In—IHH
2. Defendant STATE CENTER
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT is a public
educational entity.
OONQ'JI-PDJNi—‘OOOOQQLh-bUJNF‘O
Sunporting Evidence
California Education Code sections 70902(a)(1),
72000(a)-(b); Complaint page 2, paragraphs 2-4,
attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of S. Nicole
Tucker; SCCCD Board Policy 1100, attached as
Exhibit B to the Declaration of S. Nicole Tucker.
Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action
(Violation of the California Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civ. section 54-5532)
Defendant STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT is entitled to summary
adjudication for Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action for Violation of the California Disabled Persons
2
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Act for the following reasons:
l: Defendant is a public educational entity as it is public community college district and
therefore, it isnot subject to the California Disabled Persons Act.
_‘
MOVING PARTIES’ UNDISPUTED MATERIAL
\OOOQQUI-BUJNv—t
OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND
FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE: SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
3. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant STATE
CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
violated the California Disabled Persons Act by
owning, operating, and/or controlling the subject
ramp out of compliance with the Americans With
Disabilities Act and/or the California Code of
Regulations.
Sugporting Evidence
Complaint, page 6-7. paragraph 30-31, attached as
Exhibit A to the Declaration of S. Nicole Tucker.
4. Defendant STATE CENTER
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT is a public
educational entity.
Sugporting Evidence
California Education Code sections 70902(a)(1),
72000(a)-(b); Complaint page 2, paragraphs 2-4,
attached as Exhibit A
NNNNNNNNNH—np—tv—In—Hr—tr—Ir—An—n
to the Declaration of S. Nicole
Tucker; SCCCD Board Policy 1100, attached as
Exhibit B to the Declaration of S. Nicole Tucker.
OOQONMAUJNHOOOOQQM#WNHO
Dated: February ___, 2021 DeMaria Law Firm, A.P.C.
By:
Anthony N. DeMaria
S. Nicole Tucker, Provisionally Licensed Lawyer
Attorneys for Defendant, STATE CENTER
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
3
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS [N SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO
At the time of service, Iwas over 18 years of age and not a party t0 this action. I am
employed in the County of Fresno, State of California. My business address is 1690 W. Shaw
Ave., Suite 220, Fresno, CA 9371 1.
On February 11, 2021, I served true copies 0f the following document(s) described as
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT 0n the interested parties in this action as follows:
Eugenia L. Steele
The Torkzadeh Law Firm
18650 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92612
eugenia®torklawcom
alleox‘a@torklaw.com
claudia@t01‘klaw.com
XXX BY MAIL: I enclosed said document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed
to the persons at the address listed on the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and
mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s
practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day the
correspondence is placed from collection and mailing itis deposited in the ordinary course 0f
business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully pre-paid.
XXX BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the
parties to accept electronic service, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the
electronic service addresses listed above. The electronic service address from which I served the
documents is tmaxwell@demarialawfirm.com.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States 0f America that the
foregoing is true and correct and that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this
Court at whose direction the service was made.
Executed 0n February 11, 2021, at Fresno,
WQW
California.
Teri Maxzvell
Preview
DeMaria Law Firm, A.P.C. Anthony N. DeMaria, #177894 ademaria@demarialawfirm.com S. Nicole Tucker, #PL-508818 sntucker@demarialawfirm.com 1690 W. Shaw Ave. Suite 220 E-FILED Fresno, California 93711 2/11/2021 2:34 PM Telephone: (559) 206-2410 Superior Court of California Facsimile: \OOOQQMhUJN—I (559) 570-0126 County of Fresno By: J. Nelson, Deputy Attorneys for Defendant, State Center Community College District SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO ANITA REYES, Case No. 19CECGO3 826 Plaintiff, SEPARATE STATEMENT 0F UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN v , SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, MADERA COMMUNITY Dfiuei May 4, 2021 COLLEGE CENTER and DOES 1-20, Tune: 3:30 RM. Dept.: 403 Defendant. Action Filed: October 21 , 2019 NNNNNNNNN—tp—a—IHHHp—AHt—nn—n Trial Date: Julv 19. 2021 mfiamthfloomflmM#WN'—‘C COMES NOW, Defendant STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT (“Defendant” or “the District”), AND HEREBY SUBMITS THIS Separate Statement ofUndisputed Material Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 437C ct seq. and Rule 3.1350(b), (c), & (d) of the California Rules of Court. Through this Statement 0f Undisputed Material Facts, Defendant asks the Court to grant summary adj udication and dismiss PlaintiffANITA REYES’s (“Plaintiff”) Third and Fourth Causes ofAction of her Complaint against Defendant STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, on the following grounds: // // 1 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action (Violation 0f the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Section 51-53)) Defendant STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT is entitled to summary \OOOflQM-bbJNH adjudication for Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action for Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act for the following reasons: l: Defendant is a public educational entity as it is public community college district and therefore, it isnot subj ect to the Unruh Civil Rights Act. MOVING PARTIES’ UNDISPUTED MATERIAL VOPPOSING PARTY’s RESPONSE AND FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE: SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act by owning, operating, and/or controlling the subject ramp out of compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act and/or the California Code of Regulations. Suggorting Evidence Complaint, page 6. paragraph 26-27, attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of S. Nicole Tucker. NNNNNNNNNn—nflp—Ir—an—Av—fit—In—IHH 2. Defendant STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT is a public educational entity. OONQ'JI-PDJNi—‘OOOOQQLh-bUJNF‘O Sunporting Evidence California Education Code sections 70902(a)(1), 72000(a)-(b); Complaint page 2, paragraphs 2-4, attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of S. Nicole Tucker; SCCCD Board Policy 1100, attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of S. Nicole Tucker. Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action (Violation of the California Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civ. section 54-5532) Defendant STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT is entitled to summary adjudication for Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action for Violation of the California Disabled Persons 2 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Act for the following reasons: l: Defendant is a public educational entity as it is public community college district and therefore, it isnot subject to the California Disabled Persons Act. _‘ MOVING PARTIES’ UNDISPUTED MATERIAL \OOOQQUI-BUJNv—t OPPOSING PARTY’S RESPONSE AND FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE: SUPPORTING EVIDENCE 3. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT violated the California Disabled Persons Act by owning, operating, and/or controlling the subject ramp out of compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act and/or the California Code of Regulations. Sugporting Evidence Complaint, page 6-7. paragraph 30-31, attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of S. Nicole Tucker. 4. Defendant STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT is a public educational entity. Sugporting Evidence California Education Code sections 70902(a)(1), 72000(a)-(b); Complaint page 2, paragraphs 2-4, attached as Exhibit A NNNNNNNNNH—np—tv—In—Hr—tr—Ir—An—n to the Declaration of S. Nicole Tucker; SCCCD Board Policy 1100, attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of S. Nicole Tucker. OOQONMAUJNHOOOOQQM#WNHO Dated: February ___, 2021 DeMaria Law Firm, A.P.C. By: Anthony N. DeMaria S. Nicole Tucker, Provisionally Licensed Lawyer Attorneys for Defendant, STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT 3 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS [N SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO At the time of service, Iwas over 18 years of age and not a party t0 this action. I am employed in the County of Fresno, State of California. My business address is 1690 W. Shaw Ave., Suite 220, Fresno, CA 9371 1. On February 11, 2021, I served true copies 0f the following document(s) described as SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 0n the interested parties in this action as follows: Eugenia L. Steele The Torkzadeh Law Firm 18650 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92612 eugenia®torklawcom alleox‘a@torklaw.com claudia@t01‘klaw.com XXX BY MAIL: I enclosed said document(s) in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the address listed on the Service List and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day the correspondence is placed from collection and mailing itis deposited in the ordinary course 0f business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully pre-paid. XXX BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic service, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic service addresses listed above. The electronic service address from which I served the documents is tmaxwell@demarialawfirm.com. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States 0f America that the foregoing is true and correct and that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. Executed 0n February 11, 2021, at Fresno, WQW California. Teri Maxzvell