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
Failure to Accommodate

Charles Blackwell v. Christopher P. Foley, Thai Speed Inc. dba Citizen Thai Restaurant

Published: Jul. 31, 2010 | Result Date: Jan. 14, 2010 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 08CV01971(MHP) Settlement –  $10,000 plus injunctive relief; Bench Decision: $105,147 in attorney fees

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Paul L. Rein
(Rein & Clefton)

Brian K. Gearinger
(Gearinger Law Group)

R. Stephen M. LaRoe

Celia L. McGuinness
(Derby, McGuinness & Goldsmith )

Julie A. Ostil


Defendant

Michael K. Tcheng
(Clark Hill LLP)

P. Richard Colombatto
(Stratman Patterson & Hunter)


Facts

Plaintiff Charles Blackwell, a legally-blind and visually disabled person was a patron of defendant Thai Speed Inc., a restaurant located at 1268 Grant Avenue in San Francisco and owned by defendant Christopher Foley. Blackwell sued Foley and the restaurant for lack of disabled access.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Blackwell claimed the restaurant had numerous barriers to access for disabled persons, particularly for a visually disabled person. These alleged barriers included the entrance to the restaurant (which had a steep slope) and the men's restroom.

Result

The parties settled for $10,000, for damages only. A consent decree was entered and an order was issued by the court for injunctive relief, requiring defendant to make the premises accessible. Plaintiff's motion for statutory fees, litigation expenses, and costs, as the prevailing party, is pending.

Other Information

Following the settlement, the parties agreed either to negotiate plaintiff's statutory attorneys' fees or submit plaintiff's attorneys' fees request to the court via a motion. After negotiations were unsuccessful, plaintiff filed a motion for all of his attorneys' fees, which included further fees for filing the motion and preparing opening and reply briefs. On July 15, 2010, following a contested hearing, Judge Patel adopted Magistrate Larson's recommendation and ordered defendants to pay $105,147 in attorney fees. FILING DATE: April 15, 2008.


#94061

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

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