Defendant’s motion for an order to post security is DENIED.
Background
This is a disability discrimination case based on an access barrier. Plaintiff Jerry Jackson (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he visited Defendant Sexy Donuts with the intent of being a customer but encountered access barriers that prevented him from equal use and enjoyment of the premises; specifically, there were no seats for people in wheelchairs. On September 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed the underlying complaint.
On August 28, 2017, Defendant Sear Lim Ang (“Defendant”) filed the instant motion for an order to post security.
Legal Standard
A defendant’s primary protection against a vexatious litigant under the 1963 enactments is an order that the plaintiff post “security.” Such an order is available upon a showing that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that “there is not a reasonable probability that he will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant.” (CCP § 391.1.) If such an order is issued and
Type
CIVIL RIGHTS/DISCRIMINATION FILED (Limited Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Defendant’s motion for an order to post security is DENIED.
Background
This is a disability discrimination case based on an access barrier. Plaintiff Jerry Jackson (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he visited Defendant Sexy Donuts with the intent of being a customer but encountered access barriers that prevented him from equal use and enjoyment of the premises; specifically, there were no seats for people in wheelchairs. On September 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed the underlying complaint.
On August 28, 2017, Defendant Sear Lim Ang (“Defendant”) filed the instant motion for an order to post security.
Legal Standard
A defendant’s primary protection against a vexatious litigant under the 1963 enactments is an order that the plaintiff post “security.” Such an order is available upon a showing that the plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and that “there is not a reasonable probability that he will prevail in the litigation against the moving defendant.” (CCP § 391.1.) If such an order is issued and