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

Orlando Garcia v. Jack Dudum, et al.

Published: Oct. 28, 2022 | Result Date: Aug. 29, 2022 | Filing Date: Apr. 19, 2021 |

Case number: 3:21-cv-05081-SI Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Susan Y. Illston

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Amanda L. Seabock
(Center for Disability Access)

Cara P. Townsend
(Center for Disability Access)

Prathima R. Price
(Center for Disability Access)

Dennis J. Price II
(Center for Disability Access)

Russell C. Handy
(Center for Disability Access)


Defendant

Catherine M. Corfee
(Corfee Stone & Associates)


Facts

Orlando Garcia suffers from cerebral palsy, resulting in manual dexterity issues, an inability to walk, and requiring use of a wheelchair for mobility. Garcia filed an action against Jack and Sylvia Dudum, in their individual and representative capacity as trustee/owners of real property located in Alameda, California, and Michael Lee, owner of the Sandwich Board located at the property.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff asserted various barriers to accessibility at defendants' property in violation of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff contended that, during his visit to the Sandwich Board in May 2021, plaintiff encountered a lack of wheelchair accessible counters and wheelchair accessible dining surfaces while other dining surfaces (an outdoor seating table) were available.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions and argued that plaintiff's ADA claims should be dismissed as moot; and the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. Defendants argued that their voluntary remediation of the two barriers at issue--all structural--had mooted plaintiff's ADA claim.

Result

The court granted summary judgment as to plaintiff's ADA claim, finding it moot. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's Unruh Act claim and dismissed the claim.


#139683

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

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