This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
ADA
Unruh Civil Rights Act

Travis Morgan, Malina Gomez v. Sandra Hall, an individual and representative capacity, as trustee of the Cuyamaca Mountain Trust Dated 04-26-02; W.K.S. Frosty Corporation, and Does 1-10

Published: Oct. 23, 2020 | Result Date: Sep. 15, 2020 | Filing Date: Jul. 19, 2019 |

Case number: 3:19-cv-01348-JAH-KSC Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

John A. Houston

Court

USDC Southern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Dennis J. Price II
(Center for Disability Access)

Russell C. Handy
(Center for Disability Access)

Phyl Grace
(Center for Disability Access)


Defendant

Richard L. Deleissegues
(Law Offices of Richard L. Deleissegues)


Facts

Travis Morgan and Malina Gomez went to a Wendy's restaurant to buy food and also see if the restaurant was compliant with disability access laws. Morgan was disabled, and on one occasion while he and Gomez were at the same Wendy's location they frequent, Morgan noted there was no access to the entrance for persons with disabilities. Morgan and Gomez sued the restaurant's franchisee and its landlord under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendants were aware of the requirement under the ADA to provide equal access to its establishment to all individuals regardless of their disabilities. Despite this requirement, defendants failed to provide access to patrons with disabilities. Plaintiff contended that it was particularly difficult and uncomfortable attempting to enter defendants' facility. Defendant did not have working or availably ready accommodations for his disabilities.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the contentions and contended the complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Result

The court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction as defendant asserted and granted defendants' motion to dismiss on those grounds.


#135804

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390