Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page1 of 39

1 Bill Lann Lee- CA State Bar No. 108452
Andrew Lah- CA State Bar No. 234580
2 Julia Campins- CA State Bar No. 238023
Joshua Davidson- CA State BarNo. 275168
3 LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
476- 9th Street
4 Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 839-6824
5 Facsimile: (510) 839-7839
Email: blee@lewisfeinberg.com
6
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7

Timothy P. Fox- CA State Bar No. 157750

Fox & Robertson, P.C. 104Broadway, Suite400

~1/,q

Denver, CO 80203

· ' Y,,,.

Telephone: (303) 595-9700

Ff

TTY: (877) 595-9706

-B I 4 20

Facsimile: (303) 595-9705 RICH\

71

couRr Emm'I

:

tfiox\=«{f

ioxro

b

.com

NORCr.LC:R1K, HcRN

iDU-ItR.ss'DrDRfV1gv'._~~v'"cV•rifk."lfG

Additional attorneys listed below 0AKLAND FCALIFORNIA

41)

8

0 _. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFC!Il _

:

9 Mohan Vallabhapurapu; Ron Sarfaty; Kenneth

) Case No. " --

Q667

10 Kilgore; Tyrey Mills, a minor, by and through his )

next friend and mother Ginene Mills; Jenilyn

) COMPLAINT

11 Jimenez; Elizabeth Baker; William Farber; Uverda )

Harry; Daniel Hernandez; Kathryn Tyler; Priscilla )

12 Walker; Richard Felix; Kathleen Gonzalez; Judy ) [CLASS ACTION]

Cutler; Diane Dailey; Carol Lacher; Bethany

)

13 McClam; Erik Nieland; Carol Picchi; William

)

Showen; Anne Casey; George Partida; Kitty Dean; )

4 Alfred Brown; Marsha Shining Woman; Goldene )

Springer; and Daniel Xenos on behalf of themselves )

15 and others similarly situated,

)

)

16

Plaintiffs,

)

)

17

vs.

)

)

18 Burger King Corporation,

)

)

19

Defendant.

)

)

20

INTRODUCTION

21

1. Burger King Corporation ("BKC") is a national corporation that leases and/or

22

subleases approximately ninety restaurants in the State of California to tenant/franchises ("BKL

23

restaurants"). This proposed class action alleges that BKC has violated state and federal laws

24

and regulations by pursuing discriminatory policies or practices that result in unlawful

25

architectural or design barriers which deny customers who use wheelchairs or scooters access

26

to services at BKL restaurants.

27

28

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page2 of 39

1

2. BKC pursues a policy or practice of failing to build, alter and maintain BKL

2 restaurants in compliance with applicable wheelchair-access regulations. State and federal law

3 provide BKC with objective requirements for architectural and design features to ensure that

4 BKL restaurants will be accessible to customers who use wheelchairs and scooters. Pursuant to

5 statutory mandate, the Department of Justice has promulgated Standards for Accessible Design

6 at 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. A ("DOJ Standards"), see 42 U.S.C. § 12186(b) (statutory mandate),

7 and the California State Architect has developed the accessibility standards set forth in the

8 California Building Code, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24 ("Title 24"), see Cal. Gov't Code § 4450

9 (statutory mandate). The DOJ Standards and Title 24 will be collectively referred to as the

10 "Disability Access Requirements." The Disability Access Requirements contain detailed

11 design specifications for public accommodations covering a variety of architectural elements,

12 including, for example, parking lots, accessible routes, and restrooms. In addition, the

13 applicable regulations require BKC to maintain BKL restaurants in compliance with these

14 standards. During the class period, however, BKC has provided uniform, objective

15 requirements to tenant/franchisees to build, maintain or modify architectural or design features

16 in BKL restaurants exceptfor many Disability Access Requirements. During the class period,

17 BKC has also regularly monitored compliance by tenant/franchises with these requirements

18 exceptfor many Disability Access Requirements. As a result, BKL restaurants have -- and

19 have had during the class period -- unlawful access barriers.

20

3. These unlawful access barriers include but are not limited to entry and restroom

21 doors that are too heavy; inaccessible restrooms; inaccessible parking lots; inaccessible path of

22 travel to the service counter; inaccessible service counters; inaccessible dining areas; and

23 inaccessible drinks and self-service dispensers. These barriers have subjected Plaintiffs and the

24 proposed Class and Subclasses to injury, and will continue to do so unless enjoined.

25

4. This complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to correct BKC's policies

26 and practices to include measures necessary to ensure compliance with Disability Access

27 Requirements and to include monitoring of such measures, to remove unlawful access barriers,

28 and to prevent their recurrence so that Plaintiffs and the proposed Class and Subclasses of

COMPLAINT [CASE No. _ _ _ ___,

PAGE2

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page3 of 39

1 customers who use wheelchairs or scooters will have full and equal enjoyment ofBKL

2 restaurants. The complaint also seeks minimum statutory damages to compensate Class and

3 Subclass members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.

4

5. This case is related to a previous action against BKC filed in the United States

5 District Court for the Northern District of California in Castaneda v. Burger King Corporation,

6 N.D. Cal. No. C 08-4262 WHA (JL). That action was filed on September 10,2008 and

7 certified as ten class actions on September 25, 2009. The comi entered a final order approving

8 a settlement proposed by the parties on July 12, 2010. This action does not concern those ten

9 BKL restaurants.

10

6. This action concerns any California BKL restaurant not covered by the

11 Castaneda class certification order that, during a time period to be determined by the Court,

12 Burger King leased to or from other entities ("Remaining BKLs"). Plaintiffs believe that there

13 are 86 Remaining BKLs.

14

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

15

7. Plaintiffs' claims arise under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

16 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq., ("ADA"), the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code,§ 51, et seq.

17 ("the Unruh Act"), and the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code,§ 54, et seq. (the

18 "CDPA").

19

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

20 §§ 1331, 1332 and 1343, and pursuant to its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims

21 brought under the laws of the State of California. In addition, the matter in controversy here

22 exceeds $5,000,000 and there are members ofthe proposed class who are citizens of states

23 different from Defendant. Therefore, this Court has diversity jurisdiction over the claims of the

24 class pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).

25

9. The Court may grant declaratory and other relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201

26 and 2202. Money damages alone are inadequate, and Plaintiffs and class members suffer and

27 will otherwise continue to suffer irreparable injury.

28

10. Venue is proper within this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

COMPLAINT [CASE NO. _ _ _ ______.

PAGE3

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page4 of 39

1

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

2

11. This action arises in part in San Francisco and Alameda Counties and thus is

3 properly assigned to the San Francisco Division.

4

PARTIES

5

12. Plaintiff Ron Sarfaty is and has been at all times material hereto a resident ofthe

6 State of California. Plaintiff Sarfaty is a person with left side hemiplegia who uses a

7 wheelchair for mobility. He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

8 § 12102(2)(A), and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law,

9 including California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Sarfaty has patronized Burger

10 King restaurants in California in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants

11 in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Sarfaty has patronized Burger King restaurants including

12 but not limited to those located at 1919 Pico Blvd., Santa Monica, 21227 Sherman Way,

13 Canoga Park, 8030 Van Nuys Blvd., Panorama City, 24530 Lyons Ave., Newhall, and 29136

14 Roadside Dr., Agoura.

15

13. Plaintiff Kenneth Kilgore is and has been at all times material hereto a resident

16 of the State of California. Plaintiff Kilgore is a person with quadriplegia who uses a

17 wheelchair for mobility. He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

18 § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including

19 California Government Code section 12926. PlaintiffKilgore has patronized Burger King

20 restaurants in California in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the

21 future. Specifically, Plaintiff Kilgore has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not

22 limited to 211 N. McDowell Blvd., Petaluma, and 6125 Commerce Blvd., Rohnert Park.

23

14. PlaintiffTyrey Mills is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of the

24 State of California. He is a minor and brings this suit through his next friend, his mother

25 Ginene Mills. Tyrey Mills is a person with Down Syndrome who uses a wheelchair for

26 mobility. He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a

27 physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California

28 Government Code section 12926. PlaintiffTyrey Mills has patronized Burger King restaurants

COMPLAINT [CASE NO. _ _ _ ___,

PAGE4

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page5 of 39

1 in California in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future.

2 Specifically, PlaintiffTyrey Mills has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not

3 limited to 1901 Webster St., Alameda, and 2200 Otis Dr., Alameda.

4

15. Plaintiff Jenilyn Jimenez is and has been at all times material hereto a resident

5 of the State of California. Plaintiff Jimenez is a person with paraplegia who uses a wheelchair

6 or scooter for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

7 § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including

8 California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Jimenez has patronized Burger King

9 restaurants in California in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the

10 future. Specifically, Plaintiff Jimenez has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not

11 limited to 3747 Rosecrans St., San Diego, and 680 E. San Ysidro Blvd., San Ysidro.

12

16. Plaintiff Elizabeth Baker is and has been at all times material hereto a resident

13 of the State of California. Plaintiff Baker is a person with spinal problems, degenerative joint

14 disease, and arthritis who uses a wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the

15 meaning ofthe ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in

16 applicable California law, including California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff

17 Baker has patronized Burger King restaurants in California in the past and intends to continue

18 to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Baker has patronized Burger

19 King restaurants including but not limited to 619 W. Charter Way, Stockton.

20

17. Plaintiff William Farber is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

21 the State of California. Plaintiff Farber is a person with Progressive Multiple Sclerosis who

22 uses a wheelchair for mobility. He has a disability within the meaning ofthe ADA, 42 U.S.C.

23 § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including

24 California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Farber has patronized Burger King

25 restaurants in California in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the

26 future. Specifically, Plaintiff Farber has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not

27 limited to 2734 N. Tustin Ave., Orange.

28

COMPLAINT [CASE NO. _ _ _ __.

PAGE5

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page6 of 39

1

18. PlaintiffUverda Harry is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

2 the State of California. Plaintiff Harry is a person with rheumatoid arthritis who uses a

3 wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

4 § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including

5 California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Harry has patronized Burger King

6 restaurants in California in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the

7 future. Specifically, Plaintiff Harry has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not

8 limited to 2200 Otis Dr., Alameda, and 1571 Fitzgerald Dr., Pinole.

9

19. Plaintiff Daniel Hernandez is and has been at all times material hereto a resident

10 of the State of California. Plaintiff Hernandez is a person with spina bifida who uses a

11 wheelchair for mobility. He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

12 § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including

13 California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Hernandez has patronized Burger King

14 restaurants in California in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the

15 future. Specifically, Plaintiff Hernandez has patronized Burger King restaurants including but

16 not limited to 815 Highland Ave., National City, and 6960 Broadway, Lemon Grove.

17

20. Plaintiff Kathryn Tyler is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

18 the State of California. Plaintiff Tyler is a person with muscular dystrophy who uses a

19 wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

20 § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including

21 California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Tyler has patronized Burger King

22 restaurants in California in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the

23 future. Specifically, Plaintiff Tyler has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not

24 limited to those located at 619 W. Charter Way, Stockton, 329 N. Capitol Ave., San Jose, and

25 3098 Story Rd., San Jose.

26

21. Plaintiff Mohan Vallabhapurapu is and has been at all times material hereto a

27 resident of the State of California. Plaintiff Vallabhapurapu is a person with a spinal cord

28 injury who uses a wheelchair for mobility. He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA,

COMPLAINT (CASE No. - - - - - - '

PAGE6

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page7 of 39

1 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California

2 law, including California Government Code section 12926. PlaintiffVallabhapurapu has

3 patronized Burger King Restaurants in California in the past and intends to continue to

4 patronize these restaurants in the future. Specifically, PlaintiffVallabhapurapu has patronized

5 Burger King restaurants including but not limited to those located at 510 Euclid St., Anaheim,

6 1420 Mission Ave., Oceanside, 1919 Pico Blvd., Santa Monica, 911 W. Jefferson Blvd., Los

7 Angeles, 385 South Kiely, San Jose, 3630 Tyler St., Riverside, 24530 Lyons Ave., Newhall,

8 2600 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, 12513 East Carson St., Hawaiian Gardens, 81-779 US

9 Highway 111, Indio, 261 Race St., San Jose, 10931 Los Alamitos Blvd., Los Alamitos, 1666

10 2nd St., Norco, 2500 East Imperial Highway, Brea, and 23125 Hemlock Ave., Moreno Valley.

11

22. Plaintiff Priscilla Walker is and has been at all times material hereto a resident

12 of the State of California. Plaintiff Walker is a person who has had a knee replacement surgery

13 and uses a wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42

14 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law,

15 including California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Walker has patronized Burger

16 King restaurants in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future.

17 Specifically, Plaintiff Walker has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited

18 to that located at 450 Leavesley Rd., Gilroy.

19

23. Plaintiff Richard Felix is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

20 the State of California. Plaintiff Felix is a person who has post-polio syndrome and uses a

21 wheelchair for mobility. He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

22 § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including

23 California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Felix has patronized Burger King

24 restaurants in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future.

25 Specifically, Plaintiff Felix has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to

26 those located at 2410 N. Cedar Ave., Fresno, and 4610 E. Kings Canyon Rd., Fresno.

27

24. Plaintiff Kathleen Gonzalez is and has been at all times material hereto a

28 resident of the State of California. Plaintiff Gonzalez is a person with several medical

COMPLAINT (CASE NO. _ _ _ ___.

PAGE7

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page8 of 39

1 conditions which require her to use a wheelchair and, more recently, a scooter for mobility.

2 She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical

3 disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California Government

4 Code section 12926. Plaintiff Gonzalez has patronized Burger King restaurants in the past and

5 intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Gonzalez

6 has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to 139 N. China Lake Blvd.,

7 Ridgecrest, and 41383 Big Bear Lake Blvd., Big Bear Lake.

8

25. Plaintiff Judy Cutler is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of the

9 State of California. Plaintiff Cutler is a person with a spinal cord injury who uses a wheelchair

10 for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a

11 physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California

12 Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Cutler has patronized Burger King restaurants in

13 the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically,

14 Plaintiff Cutler has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to those

15 located at 1200 E Colorado St., Glendale, 9710 Central Ave., Montclair, 41383 Big Bear Lake

16 Blvd., Big Bear Lake, and 1666 2nd St., Norco.

17

26. Plaintiff Diane Dailey is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

18 the State of California. Plaintiff Dailey is a person who, as a result of a motorcycle accident,

19 uses a wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

20 § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including

21 California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Dailey has patronized Burger King

22 restaurants in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future.

23 Specifically, Plaintiff Dailey has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited

24 to those located at 619 W. Charter Way, Stockton, and 5315 Hopyard Rd., Pleasanton.

25

27. Plaintiff Carol Lacher is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

26 the State of California. Plaintiff Lacher is a person with back problems and arthritis in both

27 knees who uses a wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA,

28 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California

COMPLAINT [CASE No. _ _ _ _____,

PAGES

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page9 of 39

1 law, including California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Lacher has patronized

2 Burger King restaurants in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the

3 future. Specifically, Plaintiff Lacher has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not

4 limited to those located at 41383 Big Bear Lake Blvd., Big Bear Lake, and 4918 W. Sunset

5 Blvd., Los Angeles.

6

28. Plaintiff Bethany McClam is and has been at all times material hereto a resident

7 ofthe State of California. PlaintiffMcClam is a person who has medical problems with her

8 hip, back, and knees and uses a wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the

9 meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in

10 applicable California law, including California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff

11 McClam has patronized Burger King restaurants in the past and intends to continue to

12 patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff McClam has patronized Burger

13 King restaurants including but not limited to those located at 1202 W. Avenue I, Lancaster,

14 43627 N. 15th St. W, Lancaster, and 39519 lOth Street West, Palmdale.

15

29. Plaintiff Erik Nieland is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

16 the State of California. Plaintiff Nieland is a person who has muscular dystrophy and uses a

17 wheelchair for mobility. He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

18 § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including

19 California Government Code section 12926. PlaintiffNieland has patronized Burger King

20 restaurants in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future.

21 Specifically, PlaintiffNieland has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited

22 to those located at 1801 Decoto Rd., Union City, and 16 Southland Mall, Hayward.

23

30. Plaintiff Carol Picchi is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

24 the State of California. Plaintiff Picchi is a person who has cerebral palsy and uses a

25 wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

26 § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including

27 California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Picchi has patronized Burger King

28 restaurants in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future.

COMPLAINT [CASE NO.-...,------'

PAGE9

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page10 of 39

1 Specifically, Plaintiff Picchi has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited

2 to those located at 175 W Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas, 385 S. Kiely, San Jose, 329 N. Capitol

3 Ave., San Jose, 261 Race St., San Jose, 4040 Monterey Rd., San Jose, and 2170 Monterey Rd.,

4 San Jose.

5

31. Plaintiff William Showen is and has been at all times material hereto a resident

6 ofthe State of California. PlaintiffShowen has diabetes who uses a wheelchair for mobility.

7 He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical

8 disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California Government

9 Code section 12926. Plaintiff Showen has patronized Burger King restaurants in the past and

10 intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Showen

11 has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to those located at 111 S.

12 Harding Blvd., Roseville, and 450 Leavesley Road, Gilroy.

13

32. Plaintiff Anne Casey is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of the

14 State of California. Plaintiff Casey has various medical issues requiring her to use a wheelchair

15 and scooter. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a

16 physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California

17 Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Casey has patronized Burger King restaurants in the

18 past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff

19 Casey has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to those located at 3150

20 Harbor Blvd., Costa Mesa, 13421 Newport Ave., Tustin, and 601 E. Dyer Rd., Santa Ana.

21

33. Plaintiff George Partida is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

22 the State of California. Plaintiff Partida is a person with quadriplegia who uses a wheelchair

23 for mobility. He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a

24 physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California

25 Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Partida has patronized Burger King restaurants in

26 the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically,

27 Plaintiff Partida has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to those

28 located at 2101 W. Whittier Blvd., La Habra, 8845 S. Painter St., Whittier, 1919 Artesia Blvd.,

COMPLAINT [CASE NO. _ _ _ ___.

PAGE 10

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page11 of 39

1 Redondo Beach, 1919 Pico Blvd., Santa Monica, 1453 W Manchester Ave., Los Angeles, 215

2 N. Gaffey St., San Pedro, 2600 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, 5540 Cherry Ave., Long

3 Beach, 12513 E. Carson St., Hawaiian Gardens, and 1666 2nd St., Norco.

4

34. Plaintiff Kitty Dean is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of the

5 State of California. Plaintiff Dean is a paraplegic and uses a wheelchair. She has a disability

6 within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is

7 defined in applicable California law, including California Government Code section 12926.

8 Plaintiff Dean has patronized Burger King restaurants in the past and intends to continue to

9 patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Dean has patronized Burger

10 King restaurants including but not limited to those located at 822 N. Johnson St., El Cajon, 728

11 W. San Marcos Blvd., San Marcos, 377 Vista Village Dr., Vista, 12427 Poway Rd., Poway,

12 and 227 S. Tremont St., Oceanside.

13

35. Plaintiff Alfred Brown is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

14 the State of California. Plaintiff Brown has various medical issues requiring him to use a

15 wheelchair. He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a

16 physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California

17 Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Brown has patronized Burger King restaurants in

18 the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically,

19 Plaintiff Brown has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to that located

20 at 1541 E. 12th St., Oakland.

21

36. Plaintiff Marsha Shining Woman is and has been at all times material hereto a

22 resident of the State of California. Plaintiff Shining Woman has various medical issues and has

23 used a manual wheelchair. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

24 § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including

25 California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Shining Woman has patronized Burger

26 King restaurants in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future.

27 Specifically, Plaintiff Shining Woman has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not

28 limited to that located at 2055 Eureka Way, Redding.

COMPLAINT [CASE NO.-------'

PAGE 11

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page12 of 39

1

37. Plaintiff Goldene Springer is and has been at all times material hereto a resident

2 ofthe State of California. Plaintiff Springer has various medical issues and uses a scooter. She

3 has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as

4 that term is defined in applicable California law, including California Government Code

5 section 12926. Plaintiff Springer has patronized Burger King restaurants in the past and

6 intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Springer

7 has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to that located at 455 N.

8 Humboldt St., Willows.

9

38. Plaintiff Daniel Xenos is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

10 the State of California. Plaintiff Xenos is a person with congestive heart failure and chronic

11 body pain who uses a scooter for mobility. He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA,

12 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California

13 law, including California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Xenos has patronized

14 Burger King restaurants in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the

15 future. Specifically, Plaintiff Xenos has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not

16 limited to that located at 13446 Lincoln Way, Auburn.

1 7

39. Each of the Plaintiffs is (or was during the class period) substantially limited in

18 (at least) the major life activity of walking.

19

40. Defendant Burger King Corporation is a corporation incorporated under the

20 laws of Florida, with its principal place of business at 5505 Blue Lagoon Dr., Miami, Florida

21 33126. BKC franchises, leases (or leases to), and operates fast food hamburger restaurants,

22 principally under the Burger King brand, in California.

23

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

24

41. Plaintiffs seek to maintain this action as a class action under Federal Rule of

25 Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and/or Rule 23(b)(3). The class consists of all individuals who use

26 wheelchairs or electric scooters for mobility who, during a time period to be determined by the

27 Court, on the basis of disability, were denied the full and equal enjoyment of the goods,

28 services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations in any Remaining BKL because

COMPLAINT [CASE N O . - - - - - '

PAGE12

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page13 of 39

1 of noncompliance with Disability Access Requirements pertaining to width of accessible

2 parking spaces and access aisles, excessive door force, lack of or obstructed accessible routes,

3 and/or customer self-service dispensers.

4

42. The class identified in paragraph 41 is believed to consist of more than a

5 thousand members who are dispersed across the State of California. Joinder of all such class

6 members in this lawsuit is impracticable.

7

43. There are numerous questions oflaw and fact common to the class, including

8 without limitation, the following:

9

a. Whether Remaining BKLs are "public accommodations" under the

10

ADA;

11

b. Whether Remaining BKLs are "business establishments" under the

12

Unruh Act;

13

c. Whether Remaining BKLs are "places of public accommodation" or

14

"places to which the general public is invited" under the CDPA;

15

d. Whether Defendant BKC in its Remaining BKLs denies the full and

16

equal enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,

17

or accommodations to people who use wheelchairs in violation of the

18

ADA;

19

e. Whether Defendant BKC in its Remaining BKLs denies full and equal

20

accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services to people

21

who use wheelchairs, in violation of the Unruh Act;

22

f.

Whether Defendant BKC in its Remaining BKLs denies full and equal

23

access to accommodations, advantages and facilities to people who use

24

wheelchairs, in violation ofthe CDPA;

25

g. Whether alleged violations of the ADA create independent violations of

26

the Unruh Act and the CDPA;

27

h. What measures are legally required to bring Remaining BKLs into

28

compliance with the ADA, the Unruh Act and the CDPA;

COMPLAINT [CASE NO. _ _ _ ___.

PAGE 13

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page14 of 39

1

1.

Whether BKC's policies and practices cause the barriers at issue in the

2

Remaining BKLs in whole or in part; and

3

J.

Whether the barriers at issue in this case -- excessive door force,

4

obstructed accessible routes, and noncompliant customer self-service

5

dispensers-- violate state or federal law.

6

44. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the members ofthe class. They--

7 like all other members of the plaintiff class-- use a wheelchair or scooter for mobility and

8 claim that Defendant BKC has violated the ADA, the Umuh Act, and/or the CDPA by failing

9 to make the Remaining BKLs accessible to the class of people who use wheelchairs or

10 scooters.

11

45. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class because they

12 have retained counsel with extensive experience in litigation, including class action litigation,

13 and because Plaintiffs have no interests that conflict in any way with those of the class.

14

46. This action may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2)

15 because Defendant BKC's violations ofthe ADA, the Umuh Act, and the CDPA are applicable

16 to all members of the class. Therefore, an injunction requiring compliance with the ADA, the

17 Unruh Act, and the CDPA is appropriate and the primary relief sought is injunctive relief.

18

47. This action may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3)

19 because the many questions of law and fact that are common to class members clearly

20 predominate over individual questions affecting members of the class. The common issues of

21 law and fact relate to issues central to the case, such as whether Remaining BKLs are public

22 accommodations and business establishments, whether ensuring compliance with door force,

23 unobstructed accessible route, and self-service dispenser standards, as well as modifying

24 BKC's policies and practices and other measures, are required to comply with the ADA, Unruh

25 Act, and/or the CDPA.

26

48. Judicial economy will be served by maintenance of this lawsuit as a class action

27 in that it is likely to avoid the burden that would be otherwise placed upon the judicial system

28 by the filing of numerous similar suits by people with disabilities in the State of California.

COMPLAINT (CASE No. _ _ _ ___j

PAGEI4

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page15 of 39

1

49. Maintaining this lawsuit as a class action will also avoid the risk of inconsistent

2 outcomes if class members were forced to bring individual actions in various forums.

3

50. There are no obstacles to effective and efficient management of this lawsuit as a

4 class action by this Court.

5

SUBCLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

6

51. Plaintiffs also seek certification of 67 subclasses under Rule 23(b)(2) and/or

7 Rule 23(b)(3) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Each subclass consists of all individuals

8 who use wheelchairs or electric scooters for mobility who, during the applicable limitations

9 period, on the basis of disability, were denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,

10 facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations at each subclass restaurant because of

11 noncompliance with Disability Access Requirements.

12

52. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to certify a subclass as to each of the following

13 Remaining BKLs, represented by the stated Plaintiff or Plaintiffs:

14

a. Remaining BKL 609located at 2101 W. Whittier Blvd., La Habra

15

represented by Plaintiff Partida.

16

b. Remaining BKL 726located at 510 S. Euclid St., Anaheim represented

17

by Plaintiff Vallabhapurapu.

18

c. Remaining BKL 733 located at 8845 S. Painter St., Whittier represented

19

by Plaintiff Partida.

20

d. Remaining BKL 780 located at 815 Highland Ave., National City

21

represented by Plaintiff Hernandez.

22

e. Remaining BKL 814located at 822 N. Johnson St., El Cajon represented

23

by Plaintiff Dean.

24

f.

Remaining BKL 817located at 1420 Mission Ave., Oceanside

25

represented by Plaintiff Vallabhapurapu.

26

g. Remaining BKL 835 located at 3747 Rosecrans St., San Diego

27

represented by Plaintiff Jimenez.

28

COMPLAINT (CASE NO. _ _ _ __J

PAGE15

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page16 of 39

1

h. Remaining BKL 910 located at 6960 Broadway, Lemon Grove

2

represented by Plaintiff Hernandez.

3

1.

Remaining BKL 912located at 1919 Artesia Blvd., Redondo Beach

4

represented by Plaintiff Partida.

5

J.

Remaining BKL 916located at 12427 Poway Rd., Poway represented by

6

Plaintiff Dean.

7

k. Remaining BKL 918 located at 1919 Pico Blvd., Santa Monica

8

represented by Plaintiffs Sarfaty, Vallabhapurapu and Partida.

9

1.

Remaining BKL 943 located at 911 W. Jefferson Blvd., Los Angeles

10

represented by Plaintiff Vallabhapurapu.

11

m. Remaining BKL 975 located at 175 W Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas

12

represented by Plaintiff Picchi.

13

n. Remaining BKL 1036located at 21227 Sherman Way, Canoga Park

14

represented by Plaintiff Sarfaty.

15

0. Remaining BKL 1038located at 8030 Van Nuys Blvd., Panorama City

16

represented by Plaintiff Sarfaty.

17

p. Remaining BKL 1346located at 1453 W. Manchester Ave., Los Angeles

18

represented by Plaintiff Partida.

19

q. Remaining BKL 1549located at 2410 N. Cedar Ave., Fresno, CA

20

represented by Plaintiff Felix.

21

r.

Remaining BKL 1572located at 385 S. Kiely, San Jose represented by

22

Plaintiffs Vallabhapurapu and Picchi.

23

s.

Remaining BKL 1646located at 3630 Tyler St., Riverside represented

24

by Plaintiff Vallabhapurapu.

25

t.

Remaining BKL 1897located at 215 N. Gaffey St., San Pedro

26

represented by Plaintiff Partida.

27

u. Remaining BKL 1937located at 24530 Lyons Ave., Newhall

28

represented by Plaintiffs Sarfaty and Vallabhapurapu.

COMPLAINT (CASE NO.

PAGE 16

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page17 of 39

1

v. Remaining BKL 2119located at 2600 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach

2

represented by Plaintiffs Vallabhapurapu and Partida.

3

w. Remaining BKL 2132located at 1200 E Colorado St., Glendale

4

represented by Plaintiff Cutler.

5

X. Remaining BKL 2149 located at 3150 Harbor Blvd., Costa Mesa

6

represented by Plaintiff Casey.

7

y. Remaining BKL 2215 located at 13421 Newport Ave., Tustin

8

represented by Plaintiff Casey.

9

z. Remaining BKL 2268located at 619 W. Charter Way, Stockton

10

represented by Plaintiffs Baker, Tyler and Dailey.

11

aa. Remaining BKL 2279located at 329 N. Capitol Ave., San Jose

12

represented by Plaintiffs Tyler and Picchi.

13

bb. Remaining BKL 2359located at 29136 Roadside Dr., Agoura

14

represented by Plaintiff Sarfaty.

15

cc. Remaining BKL 2399located at 5540 Cherry Ave., Long Beach

16

represented by Plaintiff Partida.

17

dd. Remaining BKL 2473 located at 1202 W. Ave. I, Lancaster represented

18

by Plaintiff McClam.

19

ee. Remaining BKL 2474located at 111 S. Harding Blvd. in Roseville

20

represented by Plaintiff Showen.

21

ff. Remaining BKL 2495 located at 2200 Otis Dr., Alameda represented by

22

Plaintiffs Harry and Mills.

23

gg. Remaining BKL 2521 located at 139 N. China Lake Blvd., Ridgecrest

24

represented by Plaintiff Gonzalez.

25

hh. Remaining BKL 2555 located at 450 Leavesley Rd, Gilroy represented

26

by Plaintiffs Showen and Walker.

27

11. Remaining BKL 2795 located at 5315 Hopyard Rd., Pleasanton

28

represented by Plaintiff Dailey.

COMPLAINT [CASE No.

PAGE17

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page18 of 39

1

JJ. Remaining BKL 2893 located at 9710 Central Ave., Montclair

2

represented by Plaintiff Cutler.

3

kk. Remaining BKL 2901 located at 43627 N. 15th St. W, Lancaster

4

represented by Plaintiff McClam.

5

11. Remaining BKL 2976located at 13446 Lincoln Way, Auburn

6

represented by Plaintiff Xenos.

7

mm. Remaining BKL 3034located at 1801 Decoto Rd., Union City

8

represented by PlaintiffNieland.

9

nn. Remaining BKL 3147located at 12513 E. Carson St., Hawaiian Gardens

10

represented by Plaintiffs Vallabhapurapu and Partida.

11

00. Remaining BKL 3157 located at 211 N. McDowell Blvd., Petaluma

12

represented by Plaintiff Kilgore.

13

pp. Remaining BKL 3160 located at 4610 E. Kings Canyon Rd., Fresno

14

represented by Plaintiff Felix.

15

qq. Remaining BKL 3208 located at 2055 Eureka Way, Redding represented

16

by Plaintiff Shining Woman.

17

IT. Remaining BKL 3217located at 1571 Fitzgerald Dr., Pinole represented

18

by Plaintiff Harry.

19

ss. Remaining BKL 323 3 located at 81-779 Us Highway Ill, Indio

20

represented by Plaintiff Vallabhapurapu.

21

tt. Remaining BKL 3316located at 41383 Big Bear Lake Blvd., Big Bear

22

Lake represented by Plaintiffs Gonzalez, Cutler and Lacher.

23

uu. Remaining BKL 3355 located at 680 E. San Ysidro Blvd., San Ysidro

24

represented by Plaintiff Jimenez.

25

vv. Remaining BKL 3441 located at 455 N. Humboldt St. Willows

26

represented by Plaintiff Springer.

27

ww. Remaining BKL 3546located at 261 Race St., San Jose represented by

28

Plaintiffs Vallabhapurapu and Picchi.

COMPLAINT (CASE NO.

PAGE 18

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page19 of 39

1

XX. Remaining BKL 3580 located at 6125 Commerce Blvd., Rohnert Park

2

represented by Plaintiff Kilgore.

3

yy. Remaining BKL 3777located at 2734 N. Tustin Ave., Orange

4

represented by Plaintiff Farber.

5

zz. Remaining BKL 3827located at 3098 Story Rd., San Jose represented

6

by Plaintiff Tyler.

7

aaa. Remaining BKL 4088 located at 227 S. Tremont St., Oceanside

8

represented by Plaintiff Dean.

9

bbb. Remaining BKL 4514located at 1901 Webster St., Alameda represented

10

by Plaintiff Mills.

11

CCC. Remaining BKL 4552located at 601 E. Dyer Rd., Santa Ana represented

12

by Plaintiff Casey.

13

ddd. Remaining BKL 4641 located at 728 W. San Marcos Blvd., San Marcos

14

represented by Plaintiff Dean.

15

eee. Remaining BKL 5150 located at 10931 Los Alamitos Blvd., Los

16

Alamitos represented by Plaintiff Vallabhapurapu.

17

fff. Remaining BKL 5869located at 16 Southland Mall, Hayward

18

represented by PlaintiffNieland.

19

ggg. Remaining BKL 6028located at 4040 Monterey Rd., San Jose

20

represented by Plaintiff Picchi.

21

hhh. Remaining BKL 6755 located at 2170 Monterey Rd., San Jose

22

represented by Plaintiff Picchi.

23

111. Remaining BKL 6816located at 1666 2nd St., Norco represented by

24

Plaintiffs Vallabhapurapu, Cutler and Partida.

25

JJJ. Remaining BKL 6931 located at 2500 E. Imperial Hwy, Brea

26

represented by Plaintiff Vallabhapurapu.

27

kkk. Remaining BKL 10567 located at 23125 Hemlock Ave., Moreno Valley

28

represented by Plaintiff Vallabhapurapu.

COMPLAINT (CASE NO.

PAGE 19

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page20 of 39

1

lll. Remaining BKL 11490 located at 4918 W. Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles

2

represented by Plaintiff Lacher.

3

mmm. Remaining BKL 13284located at 1541 E. 12th St., Oakland represented

4

by Plaintiff Brown.

5

nnn. Remaining BKL 13580 located at 377 Vista Village Dr., Vista

6

represented by Plaintiff Dean.

7

ooo. Remaining BKL 16563 located at 39519 lOth Street West, Palmdale

8

represented by Plaintiff McClam.

9

53. Each subclass pertains to the Remaining BKL at which the Subclass

10 Representative and members of that subclass were denied during the liability period, or are

11 currently being denied, on the basis of disability, full and equal enjoyment of the goods,

12 services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations.

13

54. The subclasses identified in paragraph 52 are each believed to consist of

14 between forty and several hundred members who are dispersed across the State of California.

15 Joinder of all of such class members in this lawsuit is impracticable.

16

55. There are numerous questions oflaw and fact common to each of the

17 subclasses, including without limitation, the following:

18

a. Whether Remaining BKLs are "public accommodations" under the

19

ADA;

20

b. Whether Remaining BKLs are "business establishments" under the

21

Unruh Act;

22

c. Whether Remaining BKLs are "places of public accommodation" or

23

"places to which the general public is invited" under the CDPA;

24

d. Whether Defendant in the Remaining BKLs denies the full and equal

25

enjoyment of their goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or

26

accommodations to people who use wheelchairs in violation of the

27

ADA;

28

COMPLAINT [CASE No. _ _ _ __,

PAGE20

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page21 of 39

1

e. Whether Defendant in the Remaining BKLs denies full and equal

2

accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services to people

3

who use wheelchairs, in violation ofthe Unruh Act;

4

f.

Whether Defendant in the Remaining BKLs denies full and equal access

5

to accommodations, advantages and facilities to people who use

6

wheelchairs, in violation of the CDPA;

7

g. Whether alleged violations of the ADA create independent violations of

8

the Unruh Act and the CDPA;

9

h. What measures are legally required to bring Remaining BKLs into

10

compliance with the ADA, the Unruh Act and the CDPA;

11

1.

Whether BKC's policies and practices cause the barriers at issue in each

12

Remaining BKL in whole or in part; and

13

J.

Whether the barriers at issue in each Remaining BKL violate state or

14

federal law.

15

56. "All mobility-impaired patrons of a particular restaurant who use wheelchairs

16 face identical facilities and identical access barriers. Their common interest in assuring that all

17 the features at the particular restaurant are in compliance will predominate over any individual

18 differences among them." Castaneda v. Burger King Corp., 264 F.R.D. 557, 572 (N.D. Cal.

19 2009).

20

57. The claims of each Subclass Representative are typical of the claims of the

21 members of the subclass(es) he or she represents. They -- like all other members of the

22 subclasses -- use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility and claim that BKC violated the ADA,

23 the Unruh Act, and/or the CDPA by failing to make the Remaining BKLs accessible to the

24 class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters.

25

58. Each Subclass Representative will fairly and adequately protect the interests of

26 the subclass(es) he or she represents because he or she has retained counsel with extensive

27 experience in litigation, including class action litigation, and because no Subclass

28

COMPLAINT (CASE NO. - - - - - '

PAGE21

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page22 of 39

1 Representative has interests that conflict in any way with those of the subclass he or she

2 represents.

3

59. Each subclass meets the requirements ofRule 23(b)(2) because BKC's

4 violations of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA are applicable to all members of each

5 subclass. Therefore, an injunction requiring compliance with the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the

6 CDPA is appropriate and the primary relief sought is injunctive relief.

7

60. Each subclass meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) because the many

8 questions of law and fact that are common to subclass members clearly predominate over

9 individual questions affecting members of the subclass. The common issues of law and fact

10 relate to issues central to the case, such as whether Remaining BKLs are public

11 accommodations and business establishments, whether modifying Defendant's policies and

12 practices, removing barriers, and other measures, are required to comply with the ADA, Unruh

13 Act, and/or the CDPA.

14

61. Judicial economy will be served by maintenance of these subclasses in that it is

15 likely to avoid the burden that would be otherwise placed upon the judicial system by the filing

16 of numerous similar suits by people with disabilities in the State of California.

17

62. Maintaining these subclasses will also avoid the risk of inconsistent outcomes if

18 subclass members were forced to bring individual actions in various forums.

19

63. There are no obstacles to effective and efficient management of these subclasses

20 by this Court.

21

STATEMENT OF FACTS

22

64. BKC exercises control over the development, design, remodel, alteration,

23 maintenance, and operation of the Remaining BKLs pertaining to the architectural or design

24 features at issue.

25

65. On information and belief, many or all of the Remaining BKLs were originally

26 constructed and furnished by BKC.

27

66. BKC's construction managers oversee the construction process for new

28 construction, review plans and decor packages for remodeling, alterations and new

COMPLAINT [CASE No. _ _ _ __.

PAGE22

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page23 of 39

1 construction, and perform a final "punch list" walk through after alterations, remodeling, and

2 new construction are completed.

3

67. Additionally, BKC has a document known as a scope of work or workbench or

4 facility inspection report that operates as a checklist for alterations, remodeling and repairs.

5 The document includes the architectural or design features at issue.

6

68. Some or all of the Remaining BKLs were contractually required to be, and were,

7 remodeled in conformance with BKC's construction and design plans and specifications. A

8 part of that remodeling is an inspection of the premises by BKC employees in order to ensure

9 that remodeled restaurant comes as close to a new Burger King restaurant as possible.

10

69. Some or all of the Remaining BKLs engaged in "re-imaging" programs,

11 performed in accordance with BKC's designs and specifications.

12

70. All Remaining BKLs are required to comply with BKC's Manual of Operating

13 Data ("MOD"), which contains official mandatory restaurant operating standards,

14 specifications and procedures.

15

71. The MOD contains highly detailed requirements for the operation, design,

16 signage, interior decor, equipment systems, and various other items in Burger King restaurants.

17

72. Remaining BKLs are required to be repaired and maintained in accordance with

18 standards established and controlled by BKC.

19

73. The employee training programs for managers and employees of

20 tenant/franchisees in Remaining BKLs must conform to training standards and procedures

21 prescribed by BKC.

22

74. BKC conducts scheduled and unscheduled inspections and monitoring of some

23 or all of the Remaining BKLs to ensure that they are being maintained and operated in

24 compliance with the various BKC operational and other requirements.

25

75. BKC requires precise compliance by tenant/franchisees with its design,

26 construction, remodel, alteration, operations, repair, imaging and other requirements but not

27 Disability Access Requirements.

28

COMPLAINT [CASE No. _ _ _ __,

PAGE23

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page24 of 39

1

76. BKC employees conduct monitoring, inspections, and/or walkthroughs of

2 BKLs. These inspections and/or walkthroughs do not involve reviews for compliance with

3 Disability Access Requirements.

4

77. Since January 26, 1992, the date when the ADA regulations governing

5 alterations went into effect, some or all of the Remaining BKLs have undergone alterations, as

6 that term is used in the ADA, that affected, or could have affected, the usability of part or all of

7 those restaurants.

8

78. Since July 1, 1970, the date when California state access regulations went into

9 effect, some or all of the Remaining BKLs have undergone alterations, structural repairs and/or

10 additions, as those terms are used in California law, including without limitation Cal. Health &

11 Safety Code§ 19959.

12

79. Since October 2006, PlaintiffRon Sarfaty has patronized several Burger King

13 restaurants in California, including Remaining BKLs located at 1919 Pico Blvd., Santa Monica,

14 21227 Sherman Way, Canoga Park, 8030 Van Nuys Blvd., Panorama City, 24530 Lyons Ave.,

15 Newhall, and 29136 Roadside Dr., Agoura.

16

80. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Sarfaty has encountered numerous barriers to

17 access, including for example entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open, parking

18 lots with insufficient or inadequate accessible parking spaces, narrow or steep sidewalks/ramps,

19 inaccessible seating/dining areas, and drink machines and self-service dispensers that were

20 difficult for him to reach.

21

81. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Sarfaty full and equal access to, and

22 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

23 Sarfaty's dignity.

24

82. Since October 2006, PlaintiffKenneth Kilgore has patronized several Burger

25 King restaurants in California, including Remaining BKLs located at 211 N. McDowell Blvd.,

26 Petaluma and 6125 Commerce Blvd., Rohnert Park.

27

83. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Kilgore has encountered numerous barriers to

28 access, including for example entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open, parking

COMPLAINT [CASE No. _ _ _ __.

PAGE24

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page25 of 39

1 lots with insufficient or inadequate accessible parking spaces, inaccessible restrooms, narrow

2 or steep sidewalks/ramps, inaccessible seating/dining areas, and drink machines and self-

3 service dispensers that were difficult for him to reach.

4

84. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Kilgore full and equal access to, and

5 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

6 Kilgore's dignity.

7

85. Since October 2006, PlaintiffTyrey Mills has patronized several Burger King

8 restaurants in California, including Remaining BKLs located at 1901 Webster St., Alameda and

9 2200 Otis Dr., Alameda.

10

86. At Burger King restaurants, Tyrey Mills has encountered numerous barriers to

11 access, including for parking lots with insufficient or inadequate accessible parking spaces,

12 entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open and inaccessible seating/dining areas.

13

87. These barriers to access have denied Tyrey Mills full and equal access to, and

14 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Tyrey

15 Mills's dignity.

16

88. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Jenilyn Jimenez has patronized several Burger

17 King restaurants in California, including Remaining BKLs located at 3747 Rosecrans St., San

18 Diego and 680 E. San Ysidro Blvd., San Ysidro.

19

89. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Jimenez has encountered numerous barriers to

20 access, including for example entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open, parking

21 lots with insufficient or inadequate accessible parking spaces, inaccessible restrooms, narrow

22 or steep sidewalks/ramps, inaccessible seating/dining areas, and drink machines and self-

23 service dispensers that were difficult for her to reach.

24

90. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Jimenez full and equal access to, and

25 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

26 Jimenez's dignity.

27

28

COMPLAINT [CASE N o . - - - - - '

PAGE25

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page26 of 39

1

91. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Baker has patronized several Burger King

2 restaurants in California, including a Remaining BKL located at 619 W. Charter Way in

3 Stockton.

4

92. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Baker has encountered numerous barriers to

5 access, including for example entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open, and

6 drink machines and self-service dispensers that were difficult for her to reach.

7

93. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Baker full and equal access to, and

8 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

9 Baker's dignity.

10

94. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Farber patronized several Burger King restaurants

11 in California, including a Remaining BKL located at 2734 N. Tustin Ave. in Orange.

12

95. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Farber has encountered numerous barriers to

13 access, including for example entry doors that were very difficult to open, and parking lots with

14 insufficient or inadequate accessible parking spaces.

15

96. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Farber full and equal access to, and

16 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

17 Farber's dignity.

18

97. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Harry has patronized several Burger King

19 restaurants in California, including Remaining BK.Ls located at 2200 Otis Dr., Alameda, and

20 1571 Fitzgerald Dr., Pinole.

21

98. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Harry has encountered numerous barriers to

22 access, including for example entry doors that were very difficult to open, narrow or steep

23 sidewalks/ramps, seating areas that were difficult for her to use, and drink machines and self-

24 service dispensers that were difficult for her to reach.

25

99. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Harry full and equal access to, and

26 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

27 Harry's dignity.

28

COMPLAINT [CASE NO. _ _ _ __.

PAGE26

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page27 of 39

1

100. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Hernandez has patronized several Burger King

2 restaurants in California, including Remaining BK.Ls located at 815 Highland Ave., National

3 City and 6960 Broadway, Lemon Grove.

4

101. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Hernandez has encountered numerous barriers

5 to access, including for example entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open,

6 uneven routes to the restaurant, and seating and interior areas that were difficult for him to use.

7

102. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Hernandez full and equal access to,

8 and enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to

9 Mr. Hernandez's dignity.

10

103. Since October 2006, PlaintiffKathryn Tyler has patronized several Burger King

11 restaurants in California, including Remaining BK.Ls located at 619 W. Charter Way, Stockton,

12 329 N. Capitol Ave., San Jose, and 3098 Story Rd., San Jose.

13

104. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Tyler has encountered numerous barriers to

14 access, including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open,

15 parking lots with insufficient or inadequate accessible parking spaces, narrow or steep

16 sidewalks/ramps, inaccessible seating/dining areas, and self-service dispensers that were

17 difficult for her to reach.

18

105. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Tyler full and equal access to, and

19 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

20 Tyler's dignity.

21

106. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Mohan Vallabhapurapu has patronized several

22 Burger King restaurants in California, including Remaining BK.Ls located at 510 Euclid St.,

23 Anaheim, 1420 Mission Ave., Oceanside, 1919 Pico Blvd., Santa Monica, 911 W. Jefferson

24 Blvd., Los Angeles, 385 South Kiely, San Jose, 3630 Tyler St., Riverside, 24530 Lyons Ave.,

25 Newhall, 2600 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, 12513 East Carson St., Hawaiian Gardens, 81-

26 779 US Highway 111, Indio, 261 Race St., San Jose, 10931 Los Alamitos Blvd., Los Alamitos,

27 1666 2nd St., Norco, 2500 East Imperial Highway, Brea, and 23125 Hemlock Ave., Moreno

28 Valley.

COMPLAINT [CASE No. _ _ _ _____.

PAGE27

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page28 of 39

1

107. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Vallabhapurapu has encountered numerous

2 barriers to access, including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to

3 open, parking lots with insufficient or inadequate accessible parking spaces, narrow or steep

4 sidewalks/ramps, inaccessible seating/dining areas and restrooms, and drink machines and self-

5 service dispensers that were difficult for him to reach.

6

108. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Vallabhapurapu full and equal access

7 to, and enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to

8 Mr. Vallabhapurapu's dignity.

9

109. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Priscilla Walker has patronized several Burger

10 King restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 450 Leavesley Rd.,

11 Gilroy.

12

110. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Walker encountered numerous barriers to

13 access, including, for example, entry doors that were very difficult to open and counters that

14 were too high.

15

111. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Walker full and equal access to, and

16 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

17 Walker's dignity.

18

112. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Richard Felix has patronized several Burger King

19 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 2410 N. Cedar Ave., Fresno

20 and 4610 E. Kings Canyon Rd., Fresno.

21

113. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Felix has encountered numerous barriers to

22 access, including, for example, self-service dispensers that were difficult for him to reach,

23 restroom doors that were very difficult to open, and inaccessible restroom stalls.

24

114. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Felix full and equal access to, and

25 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

26 Felix's dignity.

27

28

COMPLAINT [CASE NO. _ _ _ ___.

PAGE28

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page29 of 39

1

115. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Kathleen Gonzalez has patronized several Burger

2 King restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 139 N. China Lake

3 Blvd., Ridgecrest and 41383 Big Bear Lake Blvd., Big Bear Lake.

4

116. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Gonzalez has encountered numerous barriers to

5 access, including, for example, entry doors that were very difficult to open, parking lots with

6 insufficient or inadequate accessible parking spaces, narrow or steep sidewalks/ramps,

7 inaccessible seating/dining areas and restrooms, and self-service dispensers that were difficult

8 for her to reach.

9

117. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Gonzalez full and equal access to, and

10 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

11 Gonzalez's dignity.

12

118. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Judy Cutler has patronized several Burger King

13 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 1200 E Colorado St.,

14 Glendale, 9710 Central Ave., Montclair, 41383 Big Bear Lake Blvd., Big Bear Lake, and 1666

15 2nd St., Norco.

16

119. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Cutler has encountered numerous barriers to

17 access, including, for example, entry doors that were very difficult to open, inaccessible

18 seating/dining areas, and self-service dispensers that were difficult for her to reach.

19

120. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Cutler full and equal access to, and

20 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

21 Cutler's dignity.

22

121. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Diane Dailey has patronized several Burger King

23 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 619 W. Charter Way,

24 Stockton and 5315 Hopyard Rd., Pleasanton.

25

122. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Dailey has encountered numerous barriers to

26 access, including, for example, entry doors that were very difficult to open, inaccessible

27 seating/dining areas and restrooms, and self-service dispensers that were difficult for her to

28 reach.

COMPLAINT (CASE NO. ---~---'

PAGE29

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page30 of 39

1

123. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Dailey full and equal access to, and

2 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

3 Dailey's dignity.

4

124. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Carol Lacher has patronized several Burger King

5 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 41383 Big Bear Lake Blvd.,

6 Big Bear Lake and 4918 W. Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles.

7

125. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Lacher has encountered numerous barriers to

8 access, including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open,

9 narrow or steep sidewalks/ramps, inaccessible seating/dining areas and restrooms, and self-

10 service dispensers that were difficult for her to reach.

11

126. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Lacher full and equal access to, and

12 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

13 Lacher's dignity.

14

127. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Bethany McClam has patronized several Burger

15 King restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 1202 W. Avenue I,

16 Lancaster, 43627 N. 15th St. W, Lancaster, and 39519 lOth Street West, Palmdale.

17

128. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. McClam has encountered numerous barriers to

18 access, including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open,

19 inaccessible seating/dining areas and restrooms, and self-service dispensers that were difficult

20 for her to reach.

21

129. These barriers to access have denied Ms. McClam full and equal access to, and

22 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

23 McClam's dignity.

24

130. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Erik Nieland has patronized several Burger King

25 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 1801 Decoto Rd., Union

26 City and 16 Southland Mall, Hayward.

27

28

COMPLAINT [CASE No. _ _ _ _____,

PAGE30

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page31 of 39

1

131. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Nieland has encountered numerous barriers to

2 access, including, for example, entry doors that were very difficult to open, and self-service

3 dispensers that were difficult for him to reach.

4

132. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Nieland full and equal access to, and

5 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

6 Nieland's dignity.

7

133. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Carol Picchi has patronized several Burger King

8 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 175 W Calaveras Blvd.,

9 Milpitas, 385 S. Kiely, San Jose, 329 N. Capitol Ave., San Jose, 261 Race St., San Jose, 4040

10 Monterey Rd., San Jose and 2170 Monterey Rd., San Jose.

11

134. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Picchi has encountered numerous barriers to

12 access, including, for example, parking lots with insufficient or inadequate accessible parking

13 spaces, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open, inaccessible seating/dining

14 areas and restrooms, and self-service dispensers that were difficult for her to reach.

15

135. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Picchi full and equal access to, and

16 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

17 Picchi's dignity.

18

136. Since October 2006, Plaintiff William Showen has patronized several Burger

19 King restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 111 S Harding Blvd.,

20 Roseville, and 450 Leavesley Road in Gilroy.

21

137. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Showen has encountered numerous barriers to

22 access, including, for example, entry doors that were very difficult to open, and self-service

23 dispensers that were difficult for him to reach.

24

138. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Showen full and equal access to, and

25 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

26 Showen's dignity.

27

28

COMPLAINT [CASE No. _ _ _ __J

PAGE31

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page32 of 39

1

139. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Anne Casey has patronized several Burger King

2 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 3150 Harbor Blvd., Costa

3 Mesa, 13421 Newport Ave., Tustin and 601 E. Dyer Rd., Santa Ana.

4

140. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Casey has encountered numerous barriers to

5 access, including, for example, entry doors that were very difficult to open, inaccessible

6 seating/dining areas, and self-service dispensers that were difficult for her to reach.

7

141. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Casey full and equal access to, and

8 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

9 Casey's dignity.

10

142. Since October 2006, Plaintiff George Partida has patronized several Burger

11 King restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 2101 W. Whittier

12 Blvd., La Habra, 8845 S. Painter St., Whittier, 1919 Artesia Blvd., Redondo Beach, 1919 Pico

13 Blvd., Santa Monica, 1453 W Manchester Ave., Los Angeles, 215 N. Gaffey St., San Pedro,

14 2600 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, 5540 Cherry Ave., Long Beach, 12513 E. Carson St.,

15 Hawaiian Gardens, and 1666 2nd St., Norco.

16

143. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Partida has encountered numerous barriers to

17 access, including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open,

18 inaccessible seating/dining areas and self-service dispensers that were difficult for him to reach.

19

144. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Partida full and equal access to, and

20 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

21 Partida's dignity.

22

145. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Kitty Dean has patronized several Burger King

23 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 822 N. Johnson St., El

24 Cajon, 728 W. San Marcos Blvd., San Marcos, 377 Vista Village Dr., Vista, 12427 Poway Rd.,

25 Poway, and 227 S. Tremont St., Oceanside.

26

146. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Dean has encountered numerous barriers to

27 access, including, for example, narrow or steep sidewalks/ramps, entry doors that were very

28

COMPLAINT [CASE No. _ _ _ _____.

PAGE32

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page33 of 39

1 difficult to open, inaccessible seating/dining areas, and self-service dispensers that were

2 difficult for her to reach.

3

147. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Dean full and equal access to, and

4 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

5 Dean's dignity.

6

148. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Alfred Brown has patronized several Burger King

7 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 1541 E. 12th St., Oakland.

8

149. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Brown has encountered numerous barriers to

9 access, including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open,

10 inaccessible seating/dining areas, and self-service dispensers that were difficult for him to

11 reach.

12

150. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Brown full and equal access to, and

13 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

14 Brown's dignity.

15

151. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Marsha Shining Woman has patronized several

16 Burger King restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 2055 Eureka

17 Way, Redding.

18

152. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Shining Woman has encountered barriers to

19 access, including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open, and

20 self-service dispensers that were difficult for her to reach.

21

153. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Shining Woman full and equal access

22 to, and enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to

23 Ms. Shining Woman's dignity.

24

154. Since October 2006, PlaintiffGoldene Springer has patronized several Burger

25 King restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 455 N. Humboldt St.,

26 Willows.

27

155. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Springer has encountered barriers to access,

28 including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open, inaccessible

COMPLAINT [CASE No. _ _ _ ___.

PAGE33

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page34 of 39

1 seating/dining areas and restrooms, and self-service dispensers that were difficult for her to

2 reach.

3

156. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Springer full and equal access to, and

4 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

5 Springer's dignity.

6

157. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Daniel Xenos has patronized several Burger King

7 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 13446 Lincoln Way,

8 Auburn.

9

158. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Xenos has encountered numerous barriers to

10 access, including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open.

11

159. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Xenos full and equal access to, and

12 enjoyment of, the goods and services ofBKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

13 Xenos's dignity.

14

160. Other potential class and subclass members report encountering similar barriers

15 at Remaining BKLs , including but not limited to barriers to accessible parking; doors that are

16 difficult to get to or to open; counters, drink machines and self-service dispensers that are hard

17 to reach; inaccessible seating/dining areas; and inaccessible restrooms.

18

161. On information and belief, BKC has engaged in acts of intentional

19 discrimination, including but not limited to the following policies or practices pertaining to

20 Disability Access Requirements:

21

a. designing, constructing, implementing and maintaining barriers that

22

discriminate against members of the putative class and subclasses with

23

knowledge of such discrimination and/or

24

b. designing, constructing, implementing and maintaining barriers that are

25

sufficiently intuitive and/or obvious as to constitute intentional conduct;

26

and/or

27

c. failing to act in the face of the substantial likelihood of harm to class and

28

subclass members' rights protected under federal and state law.

COMPLAINT (CASE N O . - - - - - '

PAGE34

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page35 of 39

1

162. On information and belief, Burger King utilizes standards, criteria or methods

2 of administration that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of

3 others.

4

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Americans with Disabilities Act)

5

163. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the

6

remainder of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

7

164. Title III of the ADA provides that "No individual shall be discriminated against

8

on the basis of disability in the full and egual enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,

9

privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any

10

person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation." 42

11

U.S.C. § 12182(a). Title III also prohibits an entity from "[u]tilizing standards or criteria or

12

methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability." 42

13

U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(D)(I).

14

165. Title III of the ADA also requires that individuals and entities subject to the

15

ADA are required to comply with DOJ Standards.

16

166. Remaining BKLs are places of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C.

17

§ 12181(7)(B).

18

167. Defendant is subject to Title III of the ADA because it owns, operates, and/or

19

leases the Remaining BKLs.

20

168. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiffs and members ofthe proposed

21

class and subclasses on the basis of disability. Defendant's discriminatory conduct includes but

22

is not limited to:

23

a. Maintaining discriminatory policies and practices;

24

b. Discriminatory exclusion and/or denial of goods, services, facilities,

25

privileges, advantages, accommodations, and/or opportunities;

26

c. Provision of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and/or

27

accommodations that are not equal to those afforded non-disabled

28

individuals;

COMPLAINT [CASE NO. _ _ _ __.

PAGE35

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page36 of 39

1

d. Failing to design and/or construct restaurants built for first occupancy

2

after January 26, 1993 so that they are readily accessible to and usable by

3

individuals with disabilities;

4

e. Failing to remodel or make alterations in such a manner that, to the

5

maximum extent feasible, the altered portions of the restaurants altered

6

after January 26, 1992, are readily accessible to and usable by

7

individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs

8

and scooters;

9

f.

Failing to remodel or make alterations in such a manner that, to the

10

maximum extent feasible, the path of travel to the altered area and the

11

bathrooms and drink machines serving the altered area, are readily

12

accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;

13

g. Failing to remove barriers, including but not limited to queue lines,

14

counter height, door weight, parking accessibility; to individuals with

15

disabilities where it would be readily achievable to do so;

16

h. Failing to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, and/or

17

procedures as necessary to afford the goods, services, facilities,

18

privileges, advantages, and/or accommodations to individuals with

19

disabilities; and/or

20

1.

Utilizing standards or criteria or methods of administration that have the

21

effect of discriminating on the basis of disability, or that perpetuate the

22

discrimination of tenant/franchisees who are subject to common

23

administrative control.

24

169. As such, Defendant discriminates and, in the absence of the injunction requested

25 herein, will continue in the future to discriminate against Plaintiffs and members of the

26 proposed class and subclasses on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the

27 goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of

28

COMPLAINT [CASE N O . - - - - - '

PAGE36

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page37 of 39

1 Remaining BKLs in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.

2 § 12181 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.

3

170. Defendant's violations of the ADA have harmed and will continue to harm

4 Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class and subclasses in the future.

5

171. Pursuant to the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 12188,

6 Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below.

7

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Unruh Act's Incorporation of the ADA)

8

172. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the

9

remainder of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

10

173. Remaining BKLs are business establishments and, as such, must comply with

11

the provisions of the Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code,§ 51, et seq. ("the Unruh Act").

12

174. The Unruh Act guarantees, inter alia, that persons with disabilities are entitled

13

to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business

14

establishments of every kind whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the State of California. Cal.

15

Civ. Code,§ 51(b).

16

175. The Unruh Act also provides that a violation ofthe ADA, the DOJ Standards, or

17

Title 24 is a violation of the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code,§ 51(f).

18

176. Defendant has violated the Unruh Act by, inter alia, denying, or aiding or

19

inciting the denial of, Plaintiffs' and class and subclass members' rights to the full and equal

20

accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services offered at Remaining BKLs .

21

177. Defendant has also violated the Unruh Act by denying, or aiding or inciting the

22

denial of, Plaintiffs' and class and subclass members' rights to equal access arising from the

23

provisions of the California state accessibility regulations and the ADA.

24

178. Pursuant to the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in Cal. Civ. Code§ 52,

25

Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below.

26

27

28

COMPLAINT [CASE N O . - - - - - '

PAGE37

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page38 of 39

1

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(California Disabled Persons Act and the CDPA's Incorporation of the ADA)

2

179. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the

3

remainder of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

4

180. Remaining BKLs are places of public accommodation and/or places to which

5

the general public is invited and, as such, are obligated to comply with the provisions of the

6

CDPA, Cal. Civ. Code, § 54, et seq.

7

181. The CDPA guarantees, inter alia, that persons with disabilities are entitled to

8

full and equal access, as other members of the general public, to accommodations, advantages,

9

facilities, and privileges of covered entities. Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1 (a)(l ).

10

182. The CDPA also provides that a violation ofthe ADA, the DOJ Standards, or

11

Title 24 is a violation ofthe CDPA. Cal. Civ. Code§ 54.l(d).

12

183. Defendant has violated the CDPA by, inter alia, denying and/or interfering with

13

Plaintiffs' and class and subclass members' right to full and equal access as other members of

14

the general public to the accommodations, advantages, or facilities of Remaining BKLs.

15

184. Defendant has also violated the CDPA by denying and/or interfering with the

16

Plaintiffs' and class and subclass members' rights to equal access arising from the provisions

17

of the California state accessibility regulations and the ADA.

18

185. Pursuant to the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in California law,

19

including Cal. Civ. Code§§ 54.3 and 55, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below.

20

RELIEF

21

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request:

22

1. That this Court assume jurisdiction.

23

2. That this Court certify the class and/or subclasses identified above.

24

4. That this Court declare Defendant to be in violation of Title III of the Americans

25

with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq. the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code

26

§51, et seq. and the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code,§ 54, et seq., as well as

27

their implementing regulations.

28

COMPLAINT [CASE NO.-------'

PAGE38

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document1 Filed02/14/11 Page39 of 39

1

5. That this Court issue an injunction ordering Defendant to comply with the

2 statutes and regulations set forth herein.

3

6. That this Court award minimum statutory damages, defined as $4,000 per

4 incident of discrimination under Umuh or $1,000 per incident of discrimination under the

5 CDPA, to Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class and subclasses for violations of their

6 civil rights under state law.

7

7. That this Court award Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to

8 federal and California law.

9

8. That this Court award such additional or alternative relief as may be just, proper

10 and equitable.

11 Dated: February 14, 2011
12 13
14 15 16 17
18 19

Respectfully submitted,
By: ill Lann Lee (State a o. 108452)
Andrew Lah (State ar No. 234580) Julia Campins (St e Bar No. 238023) Joshua Davidson (State Bar No. 275168) LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C. 476 Ninth Street Oakland, CA 94607 Tel: (510) 839-6824 Fax: (510) 839-7839 blee@lewisfeinberg.com alah@lewisfeinberg.com jcampins@lewisfeinberg.com

20

Timothy P. Fox (State Bar No. 157750)

FOX & ROBERTSON, P.C.

21

104 Broadway, Suite 400

Denver, CO 80203

22

Tel: (303) 595-9700

TTY: (877) 595-9706

23

Fax: (303) 595-9705

tfox@foxrob.com

24 Mari Mayeda (State Bar No. 11 0947)

25

P 0 Box 5138

Berkeley, CA 94705

26

Tel: (510) 917-1622

Fax: (510) 841-8115

27

marimayeda@earthlink.net

28 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

COMPLAINT (CASE No. _ _ ____.

PAGE39

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

10 MOHAN VALLABHAPURAP, RON SARFATY,

11

KENNETH KILGORE, TYREY MILLS, a minor, by and through his next friend and mother GINENE

12

MILLS, JENILYN JIMENEZ, ELIZABETH BAKER, WILLIAM FARBER, UVERDA HARRY,

13

DANIEL HERNANDEZ, KATHRYN TYLER, PRISCILLA WALKER, RICHARD FELIX,

14

KATHLEEN GONZALEZ, JUDY CUTLER, DIANE DAILEY, CAROL LACHER, BETHANY

15

McCLAM, ERIK NIELAND, CAROL PICCHI, WILLIAM SHOWEN, ANNE CASEY, GEORGE

16

PARTIDA, KITTY DEAN, ALFRED BROWN, MARSHA SHINING WOMAN, GOLDENE

17

SPRINGER, and DANIEL XENOS on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,

18

Plaintiffs,

19

v.

20 BURGER KING CORPORATION,

21

Defendant.

22

/

No. C 11-00667 WHA
ORDER RE BKC MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DISCOVERY ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23

Burger King Corporation seeks relief from an order of Magistrate Judge Jacqueline

24 Corley requiring BKC to produce for inspection and copying numerous disability-access surveys

25 of BKC stores detailing architectural measurements. Relief is sought on the ground that the

26 surveys are trial-preparation materials protected by Rule 26(b)(3). For the following reasons,

27 relief is DENIED, save for the conditions imposed at the end of this order.

28

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

The Court has read the Chapman, Doran, and Oliver decisions in controversy and holds

2 that, contrary to BKC, they do not bar Judge Corley’s ruling. An ADA plaintiff can obtain only

3 injunctive relief under ADA but can seek an injunction to remedy all barriers related to his

4 disability, not just the ones he encountered, so long as the Article III standing is satisfied, the

5 tests therefor being likelihood of future barrier encounters or a claimant being deterred from

6 returning again. The complaint must, Chapman holds, specify the essential elements of

7 Article III standing. Chapman further holds that it is not enough to allege merely that the

8 plaintiff is “physically disabled,” that he “visited the store” and “encountered architectural

9 barriers that denied him full and equal access,” even when the complaint appends an

10 inaccessibility survey listing barriers. The complaint must connect the alleged violations to

11 the plaintiff’s disability or at least indicate whether or not he encountered any one of them in

12 such a way as to impair his full and equal enjoyment of the store. (Doran is merely a prequel

13 to Chapman.)

14

Oliver, however, holds that under Rule 8, an ADA complaint itself must identify the

15 barriers that constitute the grounds for a claim of discrimination under the ADA. It will rarely

16 be enough to list all the unpled barriers in an expert report served near or at the end of the

17 discovery period. Oliver places a new premium on pleading all of the specifics in the operative

18 complaint, meaning the specific barriers in suit must be pled in the operative complaint.

19

In the instant action, we have sufficient time before the close of discovery to entertain

20 a seasonable motion under Rule 16 to file an amended complaint to list all further barriers.

21 This would meet the holding of Oliver. Oliver itself is not a bar to the discovery at issue.

22 Such an amendment could also satisfy Chapman. So, the cited decisions do not as a matter

23 of law bar the discovery ordered by Judge Corley.

24

The real question is whether counsel for plaintiffs have made the showing required by

25 Rule 26(b)(3)(A) to invade the qualified protection for trial-preparation materials. The most

26 troubling aspect concerns whether counsel for plaintiffs unreasonably failed to conduct their

27 own surveys back when the opportunity was available. When each disabled plaintiff came to

28 counsel, the identity of the noncompliant store was obviously known to the plaintiff who, after

2

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 all, had gone there. A barrier survey for that store could then have been undertaken at plaintiff’s

2 expense. Plaintiffs’ counsel were interested, however, in pursuing claims only as to Burger King

3 stores whose premises were owned by BKC and then leased to the franchisees (“BKLs”) and

4 were not interested in pursuing claims as to Burger King stores leased by franchisees from others

5 (“DTLs”). Of the 600-plus Burger Kings in California, 96 are BKLs.

6

Before this litigation, counsel for both sides were already engaged in pre-suit

7 communications. Counsel for BKC told counsel for plaintiffs that BKC was willing, if asked

8 as to a specific location with alleged barriers, to state whether or not it was a BKC-owned

9 location, that is, whether or not it was a BKL. Instead, however, counsel for plaintiffs insisted

10 on receiving a statewide list of all BKC-owned locations. BKC refused to turn over such an

11 omnibus list of all BKLs. As a result, plaintiffs’ counsel never asked for the information on all

12 specific stores visited by disabled clients, although counsel did do so for some locations and

13 BKC responded promptly and appropriately.

14

Why counsel for plaintiffs spurned this opportunity is a mystery. Possibly it was because

15 counsel for plaintiffs wanted to keep secret the locations they believed had barriers and for

16 which they had plaintiffs ready to proceed, thinking it would give BKC too much insight into

17 their case or would afford BKC a head start on undertaking remediation. This is only informed

18 speculation based on experience. What is nonspeculative is that BKC refused to turn over a

19 statewide BKL list, that BKC had offered to advise whether any particular location was

20 BKC-owned, and that plaintiffs’ counsel did not take even close to full advantage of that offer

21 and performed few or no surveys until after this litigation had commenced.

22

Meanwhile, BKC acted responsibly and eventually began to remediate barriers.

23 Acting through counsel, BKC did surveys of all its company-owned stores and began

24 remediation. By necessity, this meant that any plaintiff surveys done later on would miss any

25 deficiencies fixed in the process. A few years passed. Counsel for plaintiffs now want to go

26 back and to discover the work-product surveys to see how bad it was before the fixes. Our

27 public policy is to encourage voluntary remediation and we must realize that in allowing such

28 discovery we risk discouragement of surveys and remediation in the first place.

3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

As for injunctive relief, the most probative survey would be one done now, for a new

2 one done now would be fresher in time than those done years ago. There is no need to invade the

3 defense work product for purposes of injunctive relief. We must remember that under the ADA,

4 injunctive relief is the only relief available (other than costs and attorney’s fees). Plaintiffs do,

5 in fact, have their own expert at work on this and the job seems about forty percent done. The

6 work product at issue should not be invaded for this purpose and the surveys will not be deemed

7 admissible for this purpose.

8

As for damages, only the California claims allow for recovery of such relief. Such relief

9 would be for the period from October 2006 to the date of any amended complaint herein,

10 counsel having previously agreed that the limitations period for damages would extend back

11 to October 2006. This is where the surveys at issue would be illuminating and admissible.

12

*

*

*

13

This order agrees fully with Judge Corley on all but one point and that point concerns

14 the excuse given by counsel for plaintiffs for spurning the opportunity to learn ownership of

15 specific locations so as then to undertake their own survey of those stores. Plaintiffs’ counsel

16 blames BKC for refusing to hand over a statewide list of all its company-owned premises.

17 BKC, however, had no duty to turn over such a list, at least prior to litigation. BKC was willing

18 to say whether or not it owned any specific location. In the Court’s view, instead of spurning it,

19 counsel for plaintiffs should have snapped up this opportunity and should have arranged for

20 surveys of those locations.

21

*

*

*

22

Nonetheless, the Court agrees that the surveys should be turned over but on the schedule

23 and conditions set forth below. Here is why.

24

First, based on the in camera inspection of samples, the surveys do not include opinions

25 or mental impressions of attorneys or investigators. The surveys only include measurements,

26 such as how high a counter was or how many pounds of pressure were needed to open a door.

27 Measurements like this are the least protectable type of work product. To be sure, the surveys

28 will be a ready-made roadmap to exposure for nonconforming features. Still, measurements,

4

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 without opinions or mental impressions are all that they contain. The surveys are akin to

2 photographs of a train wreck before the cleanup. We would ordinarily require turnover of the

3 photographs once the scene is restored to normal. So too here. BKC has remediated most or

4 all of the violations, so now the best and only proof of past violations is the survey for that store.

5 This alone would not overcome plaintiffs’ failure to undertake their own surveys, but this factor

6 reduces the harm in allowing the discovery.

7

Second, based on experience, the Court is reasonably certain that at trial, BKC will

8 argue and its witnesses will testify that they undertook remediation, once plaintiffs’ counsel

9 complained in pre-suit communications and, therefore, the case is moot or largely moot.

10 This line of defense will itself place in issue the very subject matter of the surveys. Yes, it

11 would be possible to generalize this defense without getting into the specific deficiencies and

12 how they were fixed. But this line of defense, which seems inevitable in the judge’s experience,

13 will fairly place in issue the extent of repairs and, therefore, the extent of noncompliance before

14 the repairs. In these circumstances, it will be fair for plaintiffs to have the opportunity to meet

15 the defense argument. The surveys will be needed to do so.

16

Third, plaintiffs are correct that, in response to an interrogatory under Rule 33, BKC

17 would have a duty, on a store-by-store basis, to reveal the historical raw measurements, given

18 that BKC knows the information. That BKC learned the information by sending an investigator

19 out with a tape measure would not matter. A factoid is a factoid. A measurement is a

20 measurement. Since BKC counsel and its client now know the factoid or measurement, the

21 factoid or measurement can be extracted by Rule 33. The factoid or measurement itself is not

22 privileged. Given this, and given that turning over the surveys will reveal nothing that would not

23 already be discoverable, the practical course is to require production of the surveys themselves.

24

*

*

*

25

While it is perhaps galling that plaintiffs’ counsel failed to conduct their own surveys,

26 they will not be allowed a free ride at BKC’s expense. As a condition of obtaining any survey,

27 plaintiffs’ counsel must first pay one-half of the expense incurred by BKC in obtaining the

28

5

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 survey. (If BKC overreaches on this score, this condition will be deleted, so BKC should

2 avoid exaggeration.)

3

Further conditions are as follows: No survey need be turned over until a class for that

4 store is certified. (So long as the suit is an individual one, the claimant ought to be able to

5 remember the barriers and the need for wider proof is less compelling. Once a class is certified

6 as to a store, however, more barriers will be in play.) No survey need be turned over, moreover,

7 until after plaintiffs’ expert has completed his own survey of the location. The BKC survey at

8 issue, once turned over, may then be used to seek leave to amend the complaint as to barriers at

9 that store (to comply with Oliver) so long as the motion is seasonably made. To reduce the risk

10 of false claims and misshapen memories, counsel and their agents may not reveal to any plaintiff

11 or actual or potential class member, directly or indirectly, the contents of the report (or the

12 pleading amendments based thereon). Subject to possible trial modification, counsel may not

13 introduce the survey in evidence until after all witnesses claiming to have encountered barriers

14 at that store have testified in the case in chief for plaintiff. The surveys will be admissible only

15 to prove the features at the time of the surveys and not for purposes of possible injunctive relief.

16 Production of the surveys will be for attorney’s eyes only, subject to the foregoing uses.

17 Photographs taken in connection with the surveys will be produced and treated as the same

18 as the surveys.

19

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

22 Dated: December 7, 2011. 23

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24

25

26

27

28

6

 
 Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document227 Filed07/02/12 Page1 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

9

10 MOHAN VALLABHAPURAPU, et al.,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13 BURGER KING CORPORATION,

14

Defendant.

15

/

No. C 11-00667 WHA
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASSES

16

INTRODUCTION

17

In this ADA action, named plaintiffs move for certification of 86 restaurant-specific

18 settlement classes. The motion is unopposed by defendant for settlement purposes only. This

19 order certifies 86 settlement classes, appoints class representatives, and appoints class counsel.

20

STATEMENT

21

There are over 600 Burger King restaurants in California. Defendant BKC has a

22 leasehold interest in approximately 96 of them, referred to herein as BKL restaurants. BKC

23 leases the BKL restaurants to franchisees. In Castaneda v. BKC, No. 08-4262 (WHA), three

24 plaintiffs filed a class action alleging violations of the ADA and state law at all California BKL

25 restaurants. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), ten classes, one for each of

26 the restaurants that the three named plaintiffs had patronized, were certified.

27

Pursuant to the terms of the Castaneda settlement, BKC was required to maintain access

28 at the Castaneda BKL’s in three main ways: (1) by requiring franchisees to perform a checklist

of access-related tasks prior to opening each day, (2) by surveying each of the ten restaurants at

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document227 Filed07/02/12 Page2 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 least once every three years using an agreed-upon form and requiring the franchisees to take any

2 required corrective action, and (3) by requiring the franchisees to hire registered architects to

3 survey each restaurant every time the lease agreement is renewed and resurveying to ensure that

4 the remodeled restaurant complies.

5

In February 2011, this putative class action was filed alleging violations of the ADA,

6 Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act (the same claims brought in

7 Castaneda) at the BKL restaurants that were not covered by the Castaneda settlement. There are

8 86 such restaurants. The parties refer to these as the “remaining BKLs.” Generally, plaintiffs

9 allege that BKC has violated state and federal laws and regulations by pursuing discriminatory

10 policies or practices that result in unlawful architectural or design barriers which deny customers

11 who use wheelchairs or scooters access to services at BKL restaurants. Plaintiffs, on behalf of

12 the putative class, seek injunctive relief to remedy alleged architectural barriers to access at the

13 remaining BKLs in California; they also seek the minimum statutory damages per offense under

14 the Unruh Act and the CDPA.

15

The parties have reached a proposed settlement of this action. Plaintiffs have moved for

16 certification of 86 restaurant-specific settlement classes. BKC has not opposed. The parties

17 have filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. And plaintiffs

18 have filed a motion to amend the complaint to add named plaintiffs. The motion to amend the

19 complaint was granted. This order addresses only the motion for class certification. The motion

20 for preliminary approval will be decided by separate order.

21

In December 2011, plaintiffs moved for certification of an overarching injunctive class

22 under Rule 23(b)(2), which would cover all 86 restaurants, as well as restaurant-specific classes

23 under Rule 23(b)(3). BKC filed a motion to oppose. By order dated January 17, 2012, the

24 action was stayed pending evaluation of the proposed settlement. Plaintiffs now move for

25 certification of 86 restaurant-specific settlement classes under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). There is

26 no longer a need for an overarching injunctive class because the first amended complaint names

27 at least one plaintiff who has been to each of the 86 remaining BKLs.

28

2

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document227 Filed07/02/12 Page3 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

1.

NAMED PLAINTIFFS.

2

The first amended complaint names thirty-nine plaintiffs. They are: Mohan

3 Vallabhapurapu, Ron Sarfaty, Kenneth Kilgore, Tyrey Mills, a minor, by and through his next

4 friend and mother Ginene Mills, Jenilyn Jimenez, Elizabeth Baker, William Farber, Uverda

5 Harry, Kathryn Tyler, Priscilla Walker, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Judy Cutler, Diane

6 Dailey, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Erik Nieland, Carol Picchi, William Showen, George

7 Partida, Kitty Dean, Alfred Brown, Marsha Shining Woman, Goldene Springer, Daniel Xenos,

8 Katherine Adams, Lynda Bowman, Theresa Brown-Gaulitz, Jamie Coleman, Sheila Flaherty,

9 Lisa Lothridge, Diane Mackie, Pia Parker, Coleen Rairdon-Brainard, Geri Samuel, William

10 Sheehan, Barry Smith, David Thomas, and John Whited. Each named plaintiff is disabled and

11 uses a wheelchair or scooter for mobility and has encountered discriminatory barriers at the BKL

12 restaurant for which he or she seeks to be a class representative.

13

2.

PROPOSED CLASSES AND CLAIMS FOR RELIEF.

14

Plaintiffs seek certification of 86 restaurant-specific settlement classes under Rule

15 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). The restaurants and corresponding proposed class representatives are set

16 forth in Exhibit one, appended hereto. The proposed classes are defined as follows:

17

All individuals with mobility-impairment disabilities who use

wheelchairs or electric scooters for mobility who, at any time on or

18

after October 16, 2006, and up to the date of the class notice, were

denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis of their

19

mobility-impairment disability, full and equal enjoyment of the

goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or

20

accommodations of [the particular restaurant applicable to that

class].

21

This is the same class definition used for each store-specific class in Castaneda, except

22

for the substitution of the agreed commencement date for the class period and the fact that

23

plaintiffs here seek certification under Rule 23(b)(2) of the injunctive claims for each class. The

24

settlement classes seek injunctive relief under the ADA, Unruh, and the CDPA and minimum

25

statutory damages under Unruh, California Civil Code § 52(a), and the CDPA, California Civil

26

Code § 54.3(a).

27

28

3

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document227 Filed07/02/12 Page4 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

ANALYSIS

2

“A party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with

3 [Rule 23] — that is, he must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous

4 parties, common questions of law or fact, etc.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541,

5 2551 (2011) (emphasis in original). The party seeking class certification bears the burden of

6 showing that each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one of the requirements of

7 Rule 23(b) are met. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 1998). Pursuant to

8 Rule 23(a), for a named plaintiff to obtain class certification, the court must find:

9 (1) numerosity of the class, (2) common questions of law or fact, (3) that the named plaintiff’s

10 claims and defenses are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) that the named

11 plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel can adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiffs seek

12 certification of all 86 settlement classes under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3).

13

1.

NUMEROSITY.

14

The numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) is satisfied when “joinder of all members is

15 impracticable.” The numerosity requirement is not tied to any fixed numerical threshold, but

16 courts generally find the numerosity requirement satisfied when a class includes at least forty

17 members. See Rannis v. Recchia, 380 F. App’x 646, 651 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding a class of

18 20 was sufficient to satisfy numerosity requirement).

19

Plaintiffs have been contacted by approximately 850 individuals who report that they use

20 wheelchairs or scooters and have experienced discrimination at one or more remaining BKL

21 restaurant. In 65 of the 86 proposed settlement classes, plaintiffs have received contacts from 40

22 or more individuals. In 11 of the remaining 21 classes, plaintiffs have received contacts from

23 between 30 and 39 individuals. In four of the remaining classes, plaintiffs have received

24 contacts from between 20 and 29 individuals. In the remaining six classes, plaintiffs have

25 received contacts from between ten to 15 individuals. In all of the proposed settlement classes,

26 members reside in multiple states. In fact, in 64 of the 86 classes, members are from five or

27 more states (Fox Decl. ¶¶ 2–4; Br. Exh. 2).

28

Burger King is one of the top three fast-food hamburger chains in the world (Dkt. No.

4

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document227 Filed07/02/12 Page5 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 169-3). As of 2004, census figures demonstrated that there were approximately 151,580 non-

2 institutionalized people 16 years of age or older in California who use wheelchairs. Here, the

3 exact size of the classes are unknown. The numbers in the preceding paragraph are based on the

4 number of individuals who have contacted plaintiffs regarding this putative class action. Where,

5 as here, the class consists of persons with disabilities impacted by architectural barriers, it would

6 be difficult to identify individual class members, thereby making joinder impracticable. See

7 Arnold v. United Artist Theatre Circuit, Inc., 158 F.R.D. 439, 448 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (Henderson,

8 J.) (concluding joinder was impracticable because “by the very nature of this class” of

9 wheelchair users, “its members are unknown and cannot be readily identified”). Thus, the

10 numerosity requirement is satisfied for all 86 settlement classes.

11

2.

COMMONALITY.

12

A class has sufficient commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) if “there are questions of law or

13 fact common to the class.” Rule 23(a)(2) does not require each member in a class to have

14 identical factual and legal issues surrounding their claim. “The existence of shared legal issues

15 with divergent factual predicates is sufficient.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1019. This requirement is

16 met here because members of each of the 86 classes face identically alleged access barriers.

17 Thus, as to each class, the common contentions are “capable of classwide resolution.” Dukes,

18 131 S. Ct. at 2551.

19

3.

TYPICALITY.

20

The typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied when “the claims or defenses of

21 the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” The named

22 plaintiffs, like members of each proposed class they represent, are disabled and use wheelchairs

23 or scooters for mobility and have encountered the same alleged discriminatory barriers at the

24 same particular store, as the members of the class they seek to represent. Thus, the typicality

25 requirement is satisfied.

26

4.

ADEQUACY.

27

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the “representative parties will fairly and adequately protect

28 the interests of the class.” This factor has two requirements: (1) that the proposed representative

5

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document227 Filed07/02/12 Page6 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 plaintiffs and their counsel do not have any conflicts of interest with the proposed class and (2)

2 that the named plaintiffs and their counsel will prosecute this action vigorously on behalf of the

3 class. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020.

4

A. Adequacy of Named Plaintiffs.

5

Each named plaintiff is disabled and uses a wheelchair or scooter (Br. Exh. 2). Each

6 named plaintiff has been to one or more of the remaining BKLs, corresponding to the class

7 which he or she seeks to represent, since October 2006 and has experienced barriers to access

8 (Br. Exh. 1). The record does not show that any of the named plaintiffs has a conflicts of interest

9 with other class members. Named plaintiffs have selected counsel who have prosecuted this

10 action vigorously on behalf of the class, and nothing in the record suggests they will not

11 vigorously pursue injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of the respective classes. Named

12 plaintiffs are adequate class representatives for the classes which they seek to represent (See

13 Exh. 1).

14

B. Adequacy of Plaintiffs’ Counsel.

15

In Castaneda, current plaintiffs’ counsel were appointed as class counsel. Specifically,

16 Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson with Attorney Bill Lann Lee as lead counsel, Fox &

17 Robertson, P.C., and Mari Mayeda, were appointed as class counsel. Plaintiffs seek appointment

18 of the same class counsel in this action, with Attorney Lee serving as lead counsel. Proposed

19 class counsel possess extensive class action and ADA experience (Dkt. Nos. 169-4; 169-3; 169-

20 5). Proposed class counsel are capable of adequately and vigorously prosecuting this action.

21 Thus, Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson with Attorney Lee as lead counsel, Fox &

22 Robertson, P.C., and Mari Mayeda, are appointed as class counsel. Class counsel must make a

23 conscious effort to reduce and eliminate duplication of efforts.

24

5.

HYBRID CERTIFICATION.

25

Named plaintiffs seek certification of the 86 settlement classes under both Rule 23(b)(2)

26 and (b)(3). There is no rule against hybrid certification. See Beck v. Boeing. Co., 60 F. App’x

27 38, 39 (9th Cir. 2003).

28

6

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document227 Filed07/02/12 Page7 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

A. Rule 23(b)(2) General Applicability.

2

Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is proper if “the party opposing the class has acted or

3 refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or

4 corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” As this Court

5 held in Castaneda, “All mobility-impaired patrons of a particular restaurant who use wheelchairs

6 face identical facilities and identical access barriers.” 264 F.R.D. 557, 572 (N.D. Cal. 2009).

7 Certification of the classes’ injunctive relief claims under Rule 23(b)(2) is therefore appropriate.

8

B. Rule 23(b)(3) Predominance and Superiority.

9

Rule 23(b)(3) requires that plaintiffs show that common questions of law and fact

10 “predominate over any questions affecting only individual members” and that a “class action is

11 superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.”

12

Within each class, common questions will predominate. Members of each class are

13 mobility-impaired patrons of a particular restaurant who use wheelchairs or scooters and face

14 identical access barriers at a particular restaurant. Each restaurant’s construction date,

15 alteration’s history, and defenses will be identical within the respective classes. Our court of

16 appeals has stated that while there may be individualized issues concerning damages, “the

17 amount of damages is invariably an individual question and does not defeat class action

18 treatment.” Yokoyama v. Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 594 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 2010).

19 Common issues of fact and law will predominate over any individual differences.

20

Resolving damages claims through store-specific settlement classes will be far more

21 efficient than resolving each class member’s claims individually in separate lawsuits throughout

22 California. The barriers alleged in each store and the defenses that BKC may raise are capable

23 of being resolved on a classwide basis. Classwide resolution will avoid hundreds, if not over a

24 thousand individual trials. Thus, a class action is superior to other methods for fairly and

25 efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

26

C. Ascertainability.

27

In addition to the explicit requirements of Rule 23, an implied prerequisite to class

28 certification is that the class must be sufficiently definite. See, e.g., Dietz v. Comcast Corp.,

7

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document227 Filed07/02/12 Page8 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 2007 WL 2015440, at *8 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (Alsup, J.); Xavier v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 787 F.

2 Supp. 2d 1075, 1089 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (Alsup, J.).

3

Here, the classes are defined by knowable and provable, objective factors such as

4 disability, geography, and the dates of patronage of the restaurants. The classes are sufficiently

5 ascertainable.

6

CONCLUSION

7

To the extent stated above, plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for class certification is

8 GRANTED.

9

The 86 proposed settlement classes shall be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) for

10 injunctive relief and Rule 23(b)(3) for damages claims, one for each of the BKC restaurants

11 specified in Exhibit one, appended to this order, each defined as follows:

12

All individuals with mobility-impairment disabilities who use

wheelchairs or electric scooters for mobility who, at any time on or

13

after October 16, 2006, and up to the date of the class notice, were

denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis of their mobility-

14

impairment disability, full and equal enjoyment of the goods,

services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of

15

[the particular restaurant applicable to that class].

16 Each such class is certified to seek injunctive relief pursuant to the ADA, Unruh, and the CDPA,

17 and statutory damages pursuant to the Unruh and CDPA with regard to its respective restaurant.

18

The individuals identified in Exhibit one to this order shall be APPOINTED class

19 representatives of the classes certified herein. Exhibit one specifies the class(es) each class

20 representative will represent.

21

Pursuant to Rule 23(g), the Lewis Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson firm, with Attorney

22 Bill Lann Lee as lead counsel, the Fox & Robertson, P.C., firm, and Attorney Mari Mayeda are

23 APPOINTED as class counsel.

24

The Court will scrutinize carefully any attorney’s fee application and will eliminate waste

25 due to an inordinate number of timekeepers. Current time records must be kept so that the

26 lodestar can be tabulated by project, timekeeper, hourly rate, and time spent. The overall number

27 of timekeepers should be kept to a small, efficient core group of lawyers and legal assistants, all

28 of whom are up to speed, with only rare instances of bringing in extra timekeepers, such as, for

8

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document227 Filed07/02/12 Page9 of 9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 example, to staff an emergency motion. Using summer associates and externs is almost always

2 inefficient so, if they are used, their time should be reduced in accordance with professional

3 billing judgment.

4

The next step is to disseminate class notice. Plaintiffs have submitted a proposed form of

5 class notice. A separate order will address the revisions required to the proposed class notice

6 and set the schedule for dissemination.

7

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: July 2, 2012.
10
11

________________________________
WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document21287-41 Filed067/1042/12 Page41 of 63

1

Exhibit A1 ppendix

2

Store

City

Number

3 609

La Habra

4 726 733

Anaheim Whittier

5 780

National City

6 814 817

El Cajon Oceanside

7 835

San Diego

896 8 910

Pacific Beach Lemon Grove

9 912 916
10 918

Redondo Beach Poway Santa Monica

11 919 943

Los Angeles Los Angeles

12 975

Milpitas

1036 13 1038

Canoga Park Panorama City

14 1346
1417 15 1549

Los Angeles Los Angeles Fresno

16 1572 1646

San Jose Riverside

17 1682

Citrus Heights

18

1897 1932

San Pedro San Jose

19 1937

Newhall

2022 20 2119

Yuba City Long Beach

21 2132 2149

Glendale Costa Mesa

22 2215

Tustin

23

2268 2279

Stockton San Jose

24 2319

Hanford

2359 25

Agoura

26 CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA 27

Class Representative

Partida Vallabhapurapu Partida Mackie; Bowman Dean Vallabhapurapu Jimenez Rairdon-Brainard Mackie Partida Dean Sarfaty, Vallabhapurapu, Partida Sheehan Picchi Sarfaty Sarfaty Sarfaty Partida Sheehan Felix Vallabhapurapu, Picchi Vallabhapurapu Coleman Partida Parker Sarfaty, Vallabhapurapu Browne-Gaulitz Vallabhapurapu, Partida Cutler Browne-Gaulitz Browne-Gaulitz Baker, Tyler, Dailey Tyler, Picchi Lothridge Sarfaty

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION OF

3

SETTLEMENT CLASSES

28

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document21287-41 Filed067/1042/12 Page52 of 63

1

Store Number

City

2 2399

Long Beach

2473 3 2474

Lancaster Roseville

4 2495 2521
5 2555

Alameda Ridgecrest Gilroy

6 2563 2671

Ukiah Los Banos

7 2795

Pleasanton

2867 8 2891

Morgan Hill Carmichael

9 2893

Montclair

2901 10 2976

Lancaster Auburn

11 3034 3147

Union City Hawaiian Gardens

12 3157

Petaluma

13

3160 3208

Fresno Redding

14 3217

Pinole

3233 15 3246

Indio San Jose

16 3316 3355

Big Bear Lake San Ysidro

17 3441

Willows

18

3459 3530

Martell Crescent City

19 3546

San Jose

3580 20 3587

Rohnert Park Oceanside

21 3777 3827

Orange San Jose

22 4088

Oceanside

23 4405 4514

La Puente Alameda

24 4552

Santa Ana

4641 25

San Marcos

26 CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA 27

28

Class Representative

Partida McClam Showen Harry, Mills Gonzalez Showen, Walker Samuel Flaherty Dailey Flaherty Coleman Cutler McClam Xenos Nieland Vallabhapurapu, Partida Kilgore Felix Shining Woman Harry Vallabhapurapu Coleman; Whited Gonzalez, Cutler, Lacher Jimenez Springer Smith Thomas Vallabhapurapu, Picchi Kilgore Rairdon-Brainard Farber Tyler Dean, Bowman Sheehan Mills Sheehan Dean

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION OF

4

SETTLEMENT CLASSES

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document21287-41 Filed067/1042/12 Page63 of 63

1

Store Number

City

2 5150

Los Alamitos

5869 3 6028

Hayward San Jose

4 6755 6816
5 6931

San Jose Norco Brea

6 6947 9913

Newark Fresno

7 10567

Moreno Valley

11490 8 13284

Los Angeles Oakland

9 13580
15079 10 16563

Vista San Francisco Palmdale

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA 27

28

Class Representative
Vallabhapurapu Nieland Picchi Picchi Vallabhapurapu, Cutler, Partida Vallabhapurapu Adams Coleman; Whited Vallabhapurapu Lacher Brown Dean Coleman McClam

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATION OF

5

SETTLEMENT CLASSES

 
 Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page1 of 158
Preliminary Approval
EXHIBIT A

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page2 of 158

1

Bill Lann Lee – CA State Bar No. 108452 Andrew Lah – CA State Bar No. 234580

2

Julia Campins – CA State Bar No. 238023 Joshua Davidson – CA State Bar No. 275168

3

LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.

4

476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94607

5

Telephone: (510) 839-6824 Facsimile: (510) 839-7839

6 Email:

7

Timothy P. Fox – CA State Bar No. 157750 Amy Robertson (pro hac vice)

8

Fox & Robertson, P.C. 104 Broadway, Suite 400

9

Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 595-9700

10

TTY: (877) 595-9706 Facsimile: (303) 595-9705

11 Email: tfox@foxrob.com

Michael D. Joblove (pro hac vice) Jonathan E. Perlman (pro hac vice) GENOVESE JOBLOVE & BATTISTA, P.A. 100 SE Second Street, 44th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 349-2300 Facsimile: (305) 349-2310 Email:
Clement L. Glynn (CA State Bar No. 57117) Adam Friedenberg (CA State Bar No. 205778) GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP One Walnut Creek Center 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 210-2800 Facsimile: (925) 945-1975 Email:
Attorneys for Defendant

12 Mari Mayeda (CA State Bar No. 110947)
P O Box 5138
13 Berkeley, CA 94705
Telephone: (510) 848-3331
14 Facsimile: (510) 841-8115
Email: marimayeda@earthlink.net

15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
16

17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

19 Mohan Vallabhapurapu; et al., on behalf of 20 themselves and all others similarly situated,

21

Plaintiffs,

Case No. C-11-00667-WHA (JSC) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

22 vs.

23

Burger King Corporation,

24

Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff,

25

vs.

26

Antelope Valley Restaurants, Inc., et al.,

27

Third Party Defendants.

28
CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page3 of 158

1 2 31

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction. .................................................................................................................. 4

42
53 6
4 7 85

No Admission of Liability............................................................................................. 5 Definitions. .................................................................................................................... 5 Conditions Precedent................................................................................................... 10 Term of Agreement. .................................................................................................... 11

96

Additional Work at the Remaining BKLs. .................................................................. 11

10 7
11 8
12 9
13
14 10

Policies, Practices and Procedures. ............................................................................. 12 Monitoring of Compliance. ......................................................................................... 13 Monetary Relief and Claims Procedure. ..................................................................... 13 Opt-Out Right.............................................................................................................. 18

15 11

Dispute Resolution ...................................................................................................... 19

16 12
17 13
18
19 14

Preliminary Approval, Objections and Fairness Hearing............................................ 20 Notice .......................................................................................................................... 20 Judgment, Final Approval and Dismissal.................................................................... 21

20 15

Terms Not Confidential; Communication with the Press. .......................................... 21

21 16
22 17
23 18
24
25 19

Releases ....................................................................................................................... 21 No Third Party Beneficiaries....................................................................................... 24 Entire Agreement. ....................................................................................................... 24 Communications to BKC and Class Counsel.............................................................. 24

26 20

Modification. ............................................................................................................... 25

27 21

Severability.................................................................................................................. 25

28

CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page4 of 158

1 22

Drafting of this Agreement.......................................................................................... 25

2 23
3 24
4
5 25

Execution by Facsimile and in Counterparts............................................................... 26 Duty to Support and Defend Agreement. .................................................................... 26 Force Majeure.............................................................................................................. 26

6 26

Amounts Paid Not Penalty. ......................................................................................... 26

7 27
8 28
9 29
10
11 30

Receipt of Advice of Counsel. .................................................................................... 26 Power and Authority. .................................................................................................. 26 Continuing Jurisdiction. .............................................................................................. 26 Deadlines. .................................................................................................................... 26

12

13

TABLE OF EXHIBITS

14 Exhibit A: 15

List of Work to be Performed at the Remaining BKLs on or before 150-days Following the Final Approval

16 Exhibit B: Chart of Acceptable Measurements

17 Exhibit C:
18 Exhibit D:
19 Exhibit E:
20
21 Exhibit F:

Tri-Annual Survey Form Successor Survey Form Claim Form List of Eligible Damages Claimants

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page5 of 158

1

2 1 Introduction.

3 1.1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

This Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between Burger King Corporation (“BKC”) on the one hand, and Mohan Vallabhapurapu; Ron Sarfaty; Kenneth Kilgore; Tyrey Mills, a minor, by and through his next friend and mother Ginene Mills; Jenilyn Jimenez; Elizabeth Baker; William Farber; Uverda Harry; Kathryn Tyler; Priscilla Walker; Richard Felix; Kathleen Gonzalez; Judy Cutler; Diane Dailey; Carol Lacher; Bethany McClam; Erik Nieland; Carol Picchi; William Showen; George Partida; Kitty Dean; Alfred Brown; Marsha Shining Woman; Goldene Springer; Daniel Xenos; Katherine Adams; Lynda Bowman; Jamie Coleman; Sheila Flaherty; Theresa Brown-Gaulitz; Lisa Lothridge; Diane Mackie; Pia Parker; Coleen Rairdon-Brainard; Geri Samuel; William Earl Sheehan; Barry Smith; David Thomas; and John Whited (collectively “Named Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of themselves and a class of persons similarly situated (hereinafter referred to as the “Class” and defined below), on the other hand. BKC and the Named Plaintiffs (individually and on behalf of the Class) shall individually be referred to as a “Party” and jointly as the “Parties.”

12 1.2 13 14 15 1.3 16 17 18 1.4 19 20 21

This Agreement applies to the eighty-six (86) Burger King Restaurants listed in Paragraph 3.11 below. These eighty-six restaurants will be referred to herein as “Remaining BKLs.”
Named Plaintiffs each use a wheelchair or scooter for mobility and each claim to be a person with a disability as that term is used in the Americans with Disabilities Act. Named Plaintiffs all patronize one or more of the Remaining BKLs and intend to continue doing so in the future.
The Named Plaintiffs have brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Court”), Civil Action No. 10-00667 WHA (the “Lawsuit”), in which they allege that BKC violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq., the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq. (“Unruh”), and the California Disabled Persons Act (“CDPA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 54 et seq. at the Remaining BKLs.

22 1.5 23 24 25
1.6 26 27 28

On July 12, 2010, the Court Granted Final Approval of the settlement agreement in Castaneda v. Burger King Corp., 08-4262 WHA (“the Castaneda Settlement”). That settlement agreement addressed ten (10) California BKLs. This Settlement Agreement does not in any way affect the rights, obligations, or restaurants at issue in the Castaneda Settlement.
The Parties now wish to affect a complete resolution and settlement of all claims, disputes and controversies relating to the allegations of Named Plaintiffs and the Class with respect to the Remaining BKLs, and to resolve their differences and disputes by settling the Lawsuit.

CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page6 of 158

1 22 3 4 5 6 7 8
3 9 10 11 3.1 12

No Admission of Liability. By agreeing to and voluntarily entering into this Agreement, BKC makes no admission or concession, direct or indirect, express or implied, that the Remaining BKLs are or were in any way inaccessible or that BKC has violated the ADA, Unruh or the CDPA or any other federal, state, or local law, building code, regulation, order, or rule with respect to the Remaining BKLs. Nothing in this Agreement shall operate as an admission by BKC in any context other than within the settlement of this Lawsuit that any particular standard or standards are applicable under the ADA, Unruh, the CDPA or any other federal or state law to any Burger King restaurant. Nor shall any party, or its counsel, make reference to this Agreement as support for any future claim against any Burger King® restaurant.
Definitions. In addition to the terms defined elsewhere in the Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below. Any terms not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the ADA, the Standards and/or the CBC.
“CBC” shall refer to those portions of the California Building Code that provide standards for ensuring accessibility for individuals who use wheelchairs and scooters, including but not be limited to part 2 of title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

13 3.2 14 15 16 17 3.3

“Class” means the class and/or subclasses of all individuals with mobility-impairment disabilities who use wheelchairs or electric scooters for mobility who, at any time on or after October 16, 2006, were denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis of their mobility-impairment disability, full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of one or more of the Remaining BKLs.
“Class Member” means any member of the Class.

18 3.4 19
20 3.5
21
22 3.6
23
24
25
26 3.7
27

“Class Counsel” means Amy F. Robertson and Timothy P. Fox of Fox & Robertson, P.C., Bill Lann Lee, Julia Campins, Andrew Lah, and Joshua Davidson of Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C., and Mari Mayeda.
“Costs” means all out-of-pocket expenses reasonably incurred through the date of final approval and shall include (but not be limited to) amounts paid and payable to experts.
“Damages Claimants” means all members of the Class who contacted Class Counsel prior to the date of this Settlement Agreement indicating a desire to seek monetary recovery in this case as well as all other class members who submit a claim form for damages under this Settlement Agreement. Damages Claimants includes class members among the approximately 800 individuals referenced by Class Counsel in DE 171-5, and listed in Exhibit F to this Agreement, filed under seal.
“Dispute Resolution” means the process described in Paragraph 11 hereof.

28
CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page7 of 158

1 3.8 2 3 4
3.9 5

“Final Approval” means the approval of this Agreement by a United States District Judge by signature of an order in a form substantially similar to that submitted by the Parties that, among other things, attaches this Agreement as an exhibit, retains jurisdiction for the Court for the Term of this Agreement in order to enforce this Agreement, and has become final and non-appealable.
“Notice Deadline” means the deadline for desseminating and publishing notice to be set by the Court as part of the Preliminary Approval process.

6 3.10 “Preliminary Approval” means the initial approval by the Court of the terms of this

7

Agreement, which shall occur prior to any notice being provided in accordance with

Paragraph 12 of this Agreement.

8

3.11 “The Remaining BKLs” means the following Burger King restaurants: 9

10 3.11.1 No. 609 located at 2101 West Whittier Blvd., La Habra, CA;

11 3.11.2 No. 726 located at 510 South Euclid St., Anaheim, CA;

12 3.11.3 No. 733 located at 8845 South Painter St., Whittier, CA; 13
3.11.4 No. 780 located at 815 Highland Ave., National City, CA; 14 15 3.11.5 No. 814 located at 822 North Johnson St., El Cajon, CA;
16 3.11.6 No. 817 located at 1420 Mission Ave., Oceanside, CA;

17 3.11.7 No. 835 located at 3747 Rosecrans St., San Diego, CA;
18 3.11.8 No. 896 located at 4253 Mission Blvd., Pacific Beach, CA; 19
3.11.9 No. 910 located at 6960 Broadway, Lemon Grove, CA; 20 21 3.11.10 No. 912 located at 1919 Artesia Blvd., Redondo Beach, CA;

22 3.11.11 No. 916 located at 12427 Poway Rd., Poway, CA;

23 3.11.12 No. 918 located at 1919 Pico Blvd., Santa Monica, CA;
24 3.11.13 No. 919 located at 3520 Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles, CA;
25 3.11.14 No. 943 located at 911 W. Jefferson Blvd., Los Angeles, CA;
26
27 3.11.15 No. 975 located at 175 Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas, CA;

28 3.11.16 No. 1036 located at 21227 Sherman Way, Canoga Park, CA;
CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page8 of 158

1 3.11.17 No. 1038 located at 8030 Van Nuys Blvd., Panorama City, CA; 2
3.11.18 No. 1346 located at 1453 West Manchester Ave., Los Angeles, CA; 3 4 3.11.19 No. 1417 located at 12736 South Avalon Blvd., Los Angeles, CA;
5 3.11.20 No. 1549 located at 2410 North Cedar Ave., Fresno, CA;
6 3.11.21 No. 1572 located at 385 South Kiely, San Jose, CA; 7
3.11.22 No. 1646 located at 3630 Tyler St., Riverside, CA; 8
3.11.23 No. 1682 located at 8030 Van Nuys Blvd., Panorama City, CA; 9 10 3.11.24 No. 1897 located at 215 North Gaffey St., San Pedro, CA;
11 3.11.25 No. 1932 located at 936 Blossom Hill Rd., San Jose, CA;
12 3.11.26 No. 1937 located at 24530 Lyons Ave., Newhall, CA; 13
3.11.27 No. 2022 located at 601 Colusa Ave., Yuba City, CA’ 14 15 3.11.28 No. 2119 located at 2600 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, CA;
16 3.11.29 No. 2132 located at 1200 East Colorado St., Glendale, CA;
17 3.11.30 No. 2149 located at 3150 Harbor Blvd., Costa Mesa, CA;
18 3.11.31 No. 2215 located at 13421 Newport Ave., Tustin, CA; 19
3.11.32 No. 2268 located at 619 W. Charter Way, Stockton, CA; 20 21 3.11.33 No. 2279 located at 329 North Capitol Ave., San Jose, CA;
22 3.11.34 No. 2319 located at 301 West Lacey Blvd., Hanford, CA;
23 3.11.35 No. 2359 located at 29136 Roadside Dr., Agoura, CA; 24
3.11.36 No. 2399 located at 5540 Cherry Ave., Long Beach, CA; 25
3.11.37 No. 2473 located at 1202 W. Ave. I, Lancaster, CA; 26 27 3.11.38 No. 2474 located at 111 South Harding Blvd., Roseville, CA;
28 3.11.39 No. 2495 located at 2200 Otis Dr., Alameda, CA;
CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page9 of 158

1 3.11.40 No. 2521 located at 139 N. China Lake Blvd., Ridgecrest, CA; 2
3.11.41 No. 2555 located at 450 Leavesley Rd, Gilroy, CA; 3 4 3.11.42 No. 2563 located at East Perkins St., Ukiah, CA;
5 3.11.43 No. 2671 located at 525 Pacheco Blvd, Los Banos, CA;
6 3.11.44 No. 2795 located at 5315 Hopyard Rd., Pleasanton, CA; 7
3.11.45 No. 2867 located at 16025 Monterey Rd., Morgan Hill, CA; 8
3.11.46 No. 2891 located at 7201 Fair Oaks Blvd, Carmichael, CA; 9 10 3.11.47 No. 2893 located at 9710 Central Ave., Montclair, CA;
11 3.11.48 No. 2901 located at 43627 North 15th St. W, Lancaster, CA;
12 3.11.49 No. 2976 located at 13446 Lincoln Way, Auburn, CA; 13
3.11.50 No. 3034 located at 1801 Decoto Rd., Union City, CA; 14 15 3.11.51 No. 3147 located at 12513 E. Carson St., Hawaiian Gardens, CA;
16 3.11.52 No. 3157 located at 211 North McDowell Blvd., Petaluma, CA;
17 3.11.53 No. 3160 located at 4610 East Kings Canyon Rd., Fresno, CA;
18 3.11.54 No. 3208 located at 2055 Eureka Way, Redding, CA; 19
3.11.55 No. 3217 located at 1571 Fitzgerald Dr., Pinole, CA; 20 21 3.11.56 No. 3233 located at 81-779 US Highway 111, Indio, CA
22 3.11.57 No. 3246 located at 635 East Capitol Expressway, San Jose, CA;
23 3.11.58 No. 3316 located at 41383 Big Bear Lake Blvd., Big Bear, CA; 24
3.11.59 No. 3355 located at 680 E. San Ysidro Blvd., San Ysidro, CA; 25
3.11.60 No. 3441 located at 455 North Humboldt St., Willows, CA; 26 27 3.11.61 No. 3459 located at 2090 West Hwy 88, Martell, CA;
28 3.11.62 No. 3530 located at 1250 9th St., Crescent City, CA;
CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page10 of 158

1 3.11.63 No. 3546 located at 261 Race St., San Jose, CA; 2
3.11.64 No. 3580 located at 6125 Commerce Blvd., Rohnert Park, CA; 3
4 3.11.65 No. 3587 located at 3746 Mission Ave., Oceanside, CA;

5 3.11.66 No. 3777 located at 2734 North Tustin Ave., Orange, CA;

6 3.11.67 No. 3827 located at 3098 Story Rd., San Jose, CA;
7 3.11.68 No. 4088 located at 227 South Tremont St., Oceanside, CA;
8 3.11.69 No. 4405 located at 14600 Valley Blvd., La Puente, CA;
9
10 3.11.70 No. 4514 located at 1901 Webster St., Alameda, CA;

11 3.11.71 No. 4552 located at 601 East Dyer Rd., Santa Ana, CA;

12 3.11.72 No. 4641 located at 728 West San Marcos Blvd., San Marcos, CAl
13 3.11.73 No. 5150 located at 10931 Los Alamitos Blvd., Los Alamitos, CA;
14 15 3.11.74 No. 5869 located at 16 Southland Mall, Hayward, CA;
16 3.11.75 No. 6028 located at 4040 Monterey Rd., San Jose, CA;

17 3.11.76 No. 6755 located at 2170 Monterey Rd., San Jose, CA;
18 3.11.77 No. 6816 located at 1666 2nd St., Norco, CA; 19
3.11.78 No. 6931 located at 2500 E. Imperial Hwy, Brea, CA; 20 21 3.11.79 No. 6947 located at 34943 Newark Blvd., Newark, CA;

22 3.11.80 No. 9913 located at 6735 North Golden State Blvd., Fresno, CA (for purposes of the Settlement Agreement, “No. 9913” does not include any restrooms);
23
24 3.11.81 No. 10567 located at 23125 Hemlock Ave., Moreno Valley, CA;

25 3.11.82 No. 11490 located at 4918 West Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, CA;

26 3.11.83 No. 13284 located at 1541 East 12th St., Oakland, CA;
27 3.11.84 No. 13580 located at 377 Vista Village Dr., Vista, CA;
28
CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page11 of 158

1 3.11.85 No. 15079 located at San Francisco Int’l Airport, San Francisco, CA; and

2 3.11.86 No. 16563 located at 39519 10th St. West, Palmdale, CA.

3 3.12 “Successor Remodel” means the remodeling process that occurs when a Tenant’s lease

4

agreement is renewed. Such remodeling typically occurs at least once every twenty (20)

years.

5

3.13 “Standards” means the Standards for Accessible Design, 28 C.F.R. Part 36, Appendix A.

6

The version of the Standards in existence at the time of Final Approval of this Agreement

7

shall be the version to which this term refers except that, if amendments to or a different

version of the Standards are adopted by the Department of Justice, that different version

8

shall govern any actions taken or required to be taken after the effective date thereof.

BKC shall not be required to make alterations to any work it has done prior to that

9

effective date.

10 3.14 “Tenant” shall mean the operator or successor operator of the Remaining BKLs on or

11

after April 1, 2006 to whom BKC leases or will lease the Remaining BKLs.

12 13 4
14 4.1
15 16 4.2
17
18 19 4.3
20
21
22

Conditions Precedent. This Agreement shall be conditioned upon and shall be effective only upon the occurrence of all of the following events.
Class Counsel and BKC shall jointly request a preliminary approval hearing.
Class Counsel and BKC shall move jointly for an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of this Agreement and Approving Issuance of Notice in Accordance with the Procedures for Providing Notice Submitted by the Parties, and such motions are, and such motion is granted by the Court.
The Class shall move for an Order Granting Certification of Settlement Classes for Purposes of Settlement Only and Order Granting Permission to Amend the Complaint for Settlement Purposes Only, which BKC will not oppose, and such motions are granted by the Court. The motion will provide that if the settlement fails to be approved or otherwise fails of consummation then BKC retains all rights to object to the maintenance of an action as a class action.

23 4.4 24

Upon preliminary approval of this Agreement, Certification of the Classes and approval of the Notice and the procedures for providing notice, notice shall be provided to the Class in accordance with the procedures for providing notice approved by the Court.

25 4.5
26 4.6
27

A Fairness Hearing shall be held in accordance with Paragraph 12 below.
The Court shall grant Final Approval of this Agreement and enter Judgment in accordance with the terms set forth herein after a Fairness Hearing has been conducted,

28
CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page12 of 158

1

and all such orders and approvals have become final and non-appealable. The Judgment shall finally resolve all issues raised in this proceeding.

2

35
4
5 6
6 6.1
7
8

Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall have a term (“Term”) that expires four (4) years after the date of Final Approval as defined above, or the date the last Dispute Resolution process is concluded, whichever comes later.
Additional Work at the Remaining BKLs.
BKC will instruct the applicable Tenant/Franchisees to perform the work set forth in Exhibit A hereto at the Remaining BKLs to be completed on or before 150-days following the Final Approval.

9 6.2 10

Within one week following completion of all work set forth in Exhibit A hereto, BKC will notify Class Counsel of such completion.

11 6.3 12 13

The applicable accessibility laws and standards provide for conventional building industry tolerances for field conditions. The Parties acknowledge and agree that all work to be performed at the Remaining BKLs under this Settlement Agreement is subject to the acceptable measurements set forth in Exhibit B, hereto.

14 6.4 15 16

Within 90 days of receipt of the notice referred to in Paragraph 6.2 above, Class Counsel shall have the right to inspect the work upon written notice to BKC to verify that it has been completed. Such inspection will be conducted in the presence of BKC or the Tenant/Franchisee operator of the Remaining BKL and will be conducted in a time and manner to cause the least possible disruption to the operation of the Restaurant.

17

6.4.1 BKC will work collaboratively with Class Counsel and, as necessary, the

18

Tenant/Franchisee operator of the Remaining BKL, to schedule inspections pursuant to

19

this Paragraph 6 within the time designated under this Paragraph. If, after Class Counsel’s request to inspect one or more Remaining BKL pursuant to Paragraph 6.4, BKC and/or the

20

Tenant/Franchisee are unable to make the Remaining BKLs available for inspection within

the period specified in Paragraph 6.4, the time for Class Counsel to inspect those

21

Restaurants will be increased accordingly.

22 6.5
23 24 25 26

If Class Counsel believes that the work required by Exhibit A has not been completed satisfactorily, they shall inform BKC in writing of such insufficiency in detail reasonably sufficient to allow BKC to determine the nature of insufficiency. BKC shall have 150 days from the receipt of that notice to perform the work and provide documentation to Class Counsel of completion of the work or to submit the matter to Dispute Resolution pursuant to Paragraph 11 hereof.

27

28
CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page13 of 158

1 27

Policies, Practices and Procedures.

3 7.1 Surveys

4 7.1.1 Daily Opening Path of Travel Checklist

5 7.1.1.1 BKC will provide each Tenant a Daily Opening Path of Travel Checklist that

6

includes the following:

7

Under “Exterior” add the text “● No Obstructions”

8 Under “Dining Room Clean and Inviting” add the text “● Condiment and

9

tableware dispensers at the front of the counter.”

10

Under “Rest Rooms” add the text “● No Obstructions - Accessible to

11

Wheelchairs.”

12

Under “Front Counter Clean and Organized” add after “uncluttered” the text

13

“-- especially any lowered area.”

14

Add to the appropriate sections, “Make sure that automatic door openers are

working”

15

16

7.1.1.2 BKC will add the following text to its manual:

17

Prepare restaurant for all guests, including those who use wheelchairs,

18

scooters or walkers, including

19

Accessible parking spaces are free of obstructions;

20

There is a clear path to the counter, drinks, condiments and accessible seats

21

that is free of obstructions such as high chairs, advertising stands, etc.

22 Any lowered area of the counter is free of obstructions such as promotional

23

material, games, brochures, etc.

24

All condiment and tableware dispensers are pulled to the front of the counter

25

to be within reach ranges.

26

Restrooms are free of obstructions and the trash can is not in the clear floor

space by any of the fixtures. 27

28
CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page14 of 158

1

7.1.1.3 BKC will require each Tenant to perform the tasks set forth therein each day just prior to the Remaining BKL’s opening.

2 7.1.2 Door force checks
3

4 BKC will recommend to each Tenant/Franchisee that they measure at least twice per month the force required to open all restroom doors and public exterior doors to ensure that they do not
5 require more than 5 pounds of pressure to open.

6 7.1.3 Triennial surveys

7 7.1.3.1 At least once every three years, BKC will cause to be surveyed, by a surveyor

8

knowledgeable in the requirements of the CBC and ADA, each Remaining BKL

using the form attached as Exhibit C. 9

10

7.1.3.2 The form shall document any deviations from the applicable requirements under

this Settlement Agreement, the corrective actions that BKC will require of the

11

Tenant/Franchisee, and the timing of such corrective action.

12 13 7.1.4 Successor remodel surveys

14

7.1.4.1 When a Remaining BKL undergoes a Successor Remodel, BKC will ensure that

the Tenant/Franchisee shall hire a registered architect (the “Surveying Architect”)

15

to survey the Remaining BKL using the form attached as Exhibit D (“Successor

16

Survey Form”).

17

7.1.4.2 Following completion of the Successor Remodel, BKC will ensure that the

Surveying Architect re-surveys the Remaining BKL using the Successor Survey

18

Form, and confirms that the remodeled restaurant complies with the Settlement

19

Agreement.

20 8 21
8.1 22
23 8.2
24
25
26
27

Monitoring of Compliance.
The Parties shall monitor BKC’s compliance with Paragraph 7 as more fully described in this Paragraph 8.
No more than once each year (commencing from the date of Final Approval of this Agreement), Class Counsel may request from BKC a copy of all documents documenting Triennial and Successor Remodel surveys that were completed during the prior calendar year. Within 30 days of such request, BKC will provide the requested documents, as well as documentation sufficient in BKC’s reasonable judgment to demonstrate that necessary corrective actions, if any, have been completed.

28 9 Monetary Relief and Claims Procedure.
CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page15 of 158

1 9.1 Gross Settlement Fund

2

9.1.1 To satisfy and settle all claims for attorneys’ fees and costs, and all claims for damages of

3

the Named Plaintiffs and the Damages Claimants in this Lawsuit, BKC will pay the sum of

4

nineteen million (19,000,000) dollars (the “Gross Settlement Fund”).

5 9.1.2 Creation of Funds

6

9.1.2.1 Within thirty (30) days after the time for appeals of the order granting final

7

approval has run, or all appeals have been resolved, BKC shall cause to be

transferred to an interest-bearing trust account designated by Class Counsel (the

8

“Account”) the sum of nineteen million (19,000,000) dollars. All interest earned

on the Account between the time the Settlement Funds are deposited and the time

9

the Settlement Funds are distributed to the Named Plaintiffs and “Eligible

10

Claimants” (as that term is defined in Paragraph 9.3 herein), less taxes owed on

such interest, shall be used to pay the Named Plaintiffs and the Eligible Claimants

11

and certain Administration and Notice Costs (if such Costs exceed the amounts

12

set forth in Paragraphs 9.2.1 and 9.2.2) in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.

13 9.1.2.2 Named Plaintiffs shall retain an independent claims administrator (the “Claims

14

Administrator”) to: (1) distribute notice and Claims Forms; (2) receive and track

15

returned Claims Forms; (3) obtain supplemental information from claimants, as necessary; (4) receive and forward to the Parties and the Court Objections; (5)

16

verify the validity of each claim submitted and certify those who are Eligible

Claimants as defined in Paragraph 9.3 below; (6) administer and disburse awards

17

from the Settlement Funds; and (7) perform such other duties as are necessary to

18

carry out the provisions of the Agreement. The Parties agree that the claims administrator will have check writing authority on the Account as necessary and

19

appropriate to satisfy their responsibilities under this Agreement.

20 9.2 Use of Gross Settlement Fund. The Gross Settlement Fund will be used as follows:

21 9.2.1 Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

22

9.2.1.1 Class Counsel will apply to the District Court for an award from the Gross

23

Settlement Fund of the reasonable costs incurred by Class Counsel in litigating

24

this action through final approval. Such costs shall not include the first $100,000

of Administration and notice Costs, which, as set forth below, will be paid by

25

Class Counsel from their fee award.

26

9.2.1.2 Class Counsel will apply to the District Court for an award from the Gross

27

Settlement Fund of their reasonable fees incurred in litigating this action through

final approval. The amount of this request will not exceed 25% of the Gross

28

Settlement Fund after deduction of the costs identified in Paragraph 9.2.1.1.

CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page16 of 158

1

9.2.1.3 Class Counsel will not seek any additional attorney’s fees or costs of any kind for

2

work done on this case, excepting only attorneys’ fees awarded as a prevailing

party under the dispute resolution process set forth herein. BKC shall not oppose

3

a request by Class Counsel for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

4 9.2.2 Administration and Notice Costs. From the fee award, Class Counsel will pay the costs

5

and expenses billed by the Claims Administrator, including the costs for notice, in an

amount not to exceed $100,000. To the extent that the costs and expenses billed by the

6

Claims Administrator, including for notice, exceed $100,000, those excess amounts will be

7

paid from the Gross Settlement Fund.

8 9.2.3 Payments to Eligible Claimants. The funds remaining in the Gross Settlement Fund after

the above disbursements shall be referred to as the “Net Settlement Fund,” which will be

9

used to pay Eligible Claimants in the manner and amount described below.

10 9.2.4 To the extent that there are any funds remaining in the Net Settlement Fund after the

11

distribution to Eligible Claimants, such funds will be used as set forth in Paragraph 9.6. In

12

no event shall any funds from the Gross Settlement Fund or Net Settlement Fund revert back to BKC.

13 9.3
14
15

Eligibility for Payments from the Net Settlement Fund. To be an “Eligible Claimant” and be eligible for an award from the Net Settlement Fund, an individual must satisfy each and all of the following criteria:

16 9.3.1 Return a completed “Claim Form” (in a form substantially similar to that attached hereto as Exhibit E) that is postmarked by no later than the deadline stated in the Claim Form;
17

18

9.3.2 Declare under penalty of perjury that he/she is an individual who used or uses a wheelchair or scooter for mobility who has been to a Remaining BKL between October 16, 2006 and

19

the Final Approval date;

20 9.3.3 Declare under penalty of perjury which of the Remaining BKL(s) that he/she visited;

21 9.3.4 Declare under penalty of perjury that, between October 16, 2006 and the Final Approval

22

date, he/she visited a Remaining BKL and encountered an architectural barrier that

hindered his/her access at the Remaining BKL, or was deterred from entering a Remaining

23

BKL because of an architectural barrier of which he/she was aware;

24 9.3.5 Describe under penalty of perjury the manner in which his/her access was hindered or

25

deterred at the Remaining BKL. A visit that complies with Paragraphs 9.3.4 and 9.3.5

shall be referred to as a “Qualifying Visit.” 26

27 9.3.6 Declare under penalty of perjury the number of Qualifying Visits to each Remaining BKL that he/she has had between October 16, 2006 and the Final Approval date;
28

CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page17 of 158

1 9.3.7 Cooperate with the efforts of the Claims Administrator to process and verify the claim; and

2 9.3.8 Not previously have released his/her claims against BKC for the time period October 16, 2006 to the Final Approval date with respect to the Remaining BKLs.
3

4 9.3.9 Named Plaintiffs shall be eligible for payments from the Net Settlement Fund in accordance with the same criteria and procedures applicable to other Eligible Claimants.
5 9.4 Claims Determination Process.
6

7 9.4.1 Distribution of Claim Forms. Commencing with the Notice Deadline set by the Court and continuing through the Claim-filing deadline provided in Paragraph 9.4.2 herein, the

8

Claims Administrator shall mail a Claim Form to all Damages Claimants and any

additional individuals who may be eligible for damages. The Claims Administrator shall

9

mail a Claim Form within three (3) business days after receiving the identity of a Damages

10

Claimant. Any written request for Claim Forms received by Class Counsel or BKC’s

counsel shall be forwarded to the Claims Administrator by electronic mail or facsimile

11

within forty-eight (48) hours (excluding weekends and holidays) of its receipt. Any

12

potential Damages Claimant who telephones Class Counsel or BKC’s counsel and requests a Claim Form shall be referred to the Claims Administrator.

13 9.4.2 Filing of Completed Claim Forms. All claims for monetary payment from the Net

14

Settlement Fund shall be made in writing using the Claim Form. All Claim Forms must be

15

signed by the claimant under penalty of perjury. Each potential Eligible Claimant, including minors, must submit his/her own Claim Form. A parent, legal guardian or next

16

of kin may complete and sign a Claim Form on behalf of a minor. A designated

representative may complete and sign a Claim Form on behalf of a claimant who, because

17

of disability, incapacity or death cannot complete and sign the claim form. If a potential

18

Eligible Claimant experienced more than one discriminatory incident, all such incidents must be detailed on one (1) Claim Form. All Claim Forms must be mailed to the Claims

19

Administrator and postmarked by no later than the date that is twenty (20) days after the

final approval hearing. 20

21 9.4.3 Review of Completeness of Claim Forms. The Claims Administrator shall initially review all Claim Forms to determine if the form is filled out completely and is signed properly. If

22

the Claim Form is incomplete or is not signed properly, the Claims Administrator shall

return the Claim Form to the claimant and the claimant shall be given thirty (30) days from

23

the date of that mailing within which to return to the Claims Administrator the Claim Form

24

completed and/or signed properly. The failure of a claimant to complete, sign and return

his or her Claim Form within thirty (30) days shall result in a denial of his or her claim.

25

9.4.4 Approval of Claims. The Claims Administrator shall then conduct a review of all Claim

26

Forms to determine whether they present valid claims in accordance with the terms and

27

provisions of this Agreement. All claimants whose claims are determined to be valid by

the Claims Administrator shall be eligible for an award from the Net Settlement Fund.

28

CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page18 of 158

1

9.4.5 Disputed Claims. If upon initial review of the Claim Form, the Claims Administrator is unable to determine the validity of the claim, the Claims Administrator shall so notify the

2

claimant in writing and state the reasons why the information contained on the Claim Form

is insufficient to determine the validity of the claim. The claimant shall be given thirty

3

(30) days from the date of mailing of the notification in which to supplement or amend the

4

Claim Form or provide such other information he or she wishes to assist the Claims

Administrator in determining the validity of the claim. Upon further review of the Claim

5

Form, including such additional information as may be submitted by the claimant, the

Administrator shall (i) approve the claim, in which case, the claimant is eligible for an

6

award from the Funds; or (ii) reject the claim.

7 9.4.6 Rejected Claims. If the Claims Administrator rejects a claim as not meeting the terms or

8

provisions of this Agreement, the Administrator shall so notify the claimant in writing.

9 9.4.7 Deadline for Administrator Review of All Claims. The Claims Administrator shall

10

complete its review and issue a determination as to the validity of all Claim Forms within

ninety (90) days of the deadline for submission of Claim Forms set forth in Paragraph

11

9.4.2.

12 9.4.8 Determination – Final and Binding. All determinations of the Claims Administrator shall

13

be final, binding, and non-appealable. Neither Class Counsel nor BKC shall have any

responsibility for or role in the claims determination process.

14

15 9.5 Class Monetary Distribution.

16 9.5.1 The maximum number of Qualifying Visits for which an Eligible Claimant may obtain recovery is six (6).
17

18

9.5.2 The amount that an Eligible Claimant may recover for each Qualifying Visit shall be determined by dividing the Net Settlement Fund by the Total Qualifying Visits, where the

19

Total Qualifying Visits is the sum of all Eligible Claimant’s Qualifying Visits (not to

exceed six such Visits for a single Eligible Claimant). 20

21

9.5.2.1 By way of example, if (a) the Net Settlement Fund is $14 million; (b) there are

1500 Eligible Claimants, and (c) the sum of all Qualifying Visits for all Eligible

22

Claimants (with no single class member eligible for more than six visits) is 4500,

then the amount that an Eligible Claimant would recover for a Qualifying Visit

23

would be ($14 million / 4500), or $3,111.11 per Qualifying Visit. Under this

24

scenario, an Eligible Claimant seeking recovery for one Qualifying Visit would

receive $3,111.11, and an Eligible Claimant seeking recovery for six or more

25

Qualifying Visits would receive $18,666.67.

26 9.5.3 No later than ten (10) days after the deadline for completion of the claims determination

27

process set forth in Paragraph 9.4, the Claims Administrator shall provide Class Counsel

and BKC with a list of the names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, a copy

28

CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page19 of 158

1

of the claims forms, and the pro rata amount of the validated claim from the Net Settlement Fund, of all persons who have submitted claims in connection with the Lawsuit.

2

9.5.4 No later than twenty (20) days after the deadline for completion of the claims

3

determination process set forth in Paragraph 9.4, the Claims Administrator shall cause to

4

be mailed, via certified mail, return receipt requested, checks in the amounts specified in

the claims determination process, and 1099 forms to Eligible Claimants. All checks shall

5

be negotiable for no more than one (1) year from the date of mailing.

6

9.5.5 Returned checks. When the Claims Administrator receives a returned check based on an

7

incorrect address, it will conduct a database search for an additional address and, if an

8

additional address is identified, the Claims Administrator will re-mail the check to that

address within 14 days of its receipt of the returned check. All returned checks of

9

claimants for whom no correct address is obtained shall be held by the Claims

Administrator for sixty (60) days. If no claim is made for such checks during this time

10

period, the funds from such checks shall become part of the funds to be allocated to Cy

11

Pres and distributed in accordance with Paragraph 9.6 of this Agreement.

12 9.6 Cy Pres.

13 9.6.1 In the event that there are funds remaining in the Net Settlement Fund as a result of

14

returned or uncashed checks or otherwise, and a period of one hundred (100) days has

elapsed from the date on which settlement checks are mailed by the Claims Administrator,

15

then such remaining amounts shall be used first to pay any otherwise valid claims that

16

were excluded from the Class Monetary Distribution through error or omission of the Claims Administrator, or for which the Claims Administrator determines good cause exists

17

for payment. Any further balance remaining shall be paid to Disability Rights California.

18 10 Opt-Out Right.

19 10.1 No Class Member may opt out of the injunctive relief provisions of this Agreement.

20

10.2 Any Damages Claimant may request exclusion from the Class for purposes of monetary

21

relief only. Damages Claimants who wish to opt out of the Class for purposes of

22

participation in the monetary portion of the settlement must submit a written and signed

request for exclusion (“Opt-Out Statement”) to the Claims Administrator. Opt-Out

23

Statements must be postmarked and mailed to the Claims Administrator not later than

24

sixty (60) days after the Notice Deadline set by the Court. Any class member who has filed a request to opt-out of the Agreement may rescind this opt-out by no later than

25

twenty (20) days after the final approval hearing.

26 10.3 The Claims Administrator shall stamp the date received on the original of any Opt-Out

27

Statement it receives and serve copies of the Statement on Class Counsel and BKC counsel not later than three (3) business days after receipt thereof and shall file the date-

28

stamped originals of any Opt-Out Statements with the Clerk of the Court not later than

CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page20 of 158

1

ten (10) business days prior to the date set for the final approval hearing. The Claims

Administrator shall retain copies of all Opt-Out Statements in its files until such time as

2

the Claims Administrator is relieved of its duties and responsibilities under this

Agreement. 3

4 10.4 If the number of Damages Claimants who opt out of the Class in the manner provided in this Agreement exceeds 100, or consists of Damages Claimants whose claims, in the

5

aggregate, exceed $1.5 million, then BKC, at its sole option, shall have the right to void

6

this settlement on the tenth (10th) day after the Court requires individuals to return opt out notices. If BKC exercises this option, all of the Parties’ obligations under this

7

Agreement shall cease to be of any force and effect, and the Agreement and any orders

entered in connection therewith shall be vacated, rescinded, canceled, and annulled, and

8

the Parties shall return to the status quo in the Lawsuit as if the Parties had not entered

9

into the Agreement, including return of all payment(s) BKC may have made hereunder, if

any. In addition, the Agreement and all negotiations, court orders and proceedings

10

relating thereto shall be without prejudice to the rights of any and all Parties hereto, and

evidence relating to the Agreement and all negotiations shall not be admissible or

11

discoverable in the Lawsuit or otherwise.

12 11
13

Dispute Resolution. The Parties shall address disputes relating to the provisions of this Agreement as follows.

14 11.1 Informal dispute resolution

15 11.1.1 If any Party believes that a dispute exists relating to the provisions of this Agreement, it

16

shall notify the other Party in writing, describing the dispute. The other Party shall

17

respond in writing to such notice within fifteen (15) business days of receipt of the notice.

18 11.1.2 Within fifteen (15) business days of receipt of the response described in Paragraph 11.1.1, counsel for both Parties shall meet and confer by telephone or in person and attempt to

19

resolve the issue informally. If the Parties believe it would be useful to enter mediation on

20

the issue in dispute, they may agree to do so.

21 11.2 Submission to the Court

22 11.2.1 If the meet and confer process pursuant to Paragraph 11.1 above does not result in a

23

resolution of the dispute within a reasonable time, any Party may make a motion for resolution of the dispute by Judge William Alsup or any other United States District Judge

24

who may be assigned to the case.

25 11.2.2 In the event any Party finds that it is necessary to seek resolution of the dispute by the

26

Court, the Court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and Costs incurred in pursuing

dispute resolution as set forth in this Paragraph 11.2 in accordance with the prevailing

27

party standards of the ADA and Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421-

22 (1978). Should BKC prevail on two separate occasions on which a dispute is brought 28

CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page21 of 158

1

before the Court, the Christiansburg Garment standard shall not apply in ensuing occasions on which a dispute is brought before the Court, but rather the Court shall award

2

fees to the prevailing party.

3 12 Preliminary Approval, Objections and Fairness Hearing.

4 12.1 Promptly after execution of this Agreement, the Parties shall jointly request that the Court

5

schedule a preliminary approval hearing on June 28, 2012 or as soon thereafter as the

Court may set the hearing and that the Court enter an Order Granting Preliminary

6

Approval of this Agreement and Preliminarily Certifying the Class(es) for Settlement

7

Purposes Only, and Approving the Proposed Form of Notice and Plan for Providing

Notice Submitted by the Parties.

8

12.2 The Parties shall ask the Court to schedule a fairness and final approval hearing for a date

9

after October 11, 2012 or eighty (80) days after the Notice Deadline set by the Court,

10

whichever is later, or as soon thereafter as the Court may set the hearing.

11 12.3 Any Class Member may object to the proposed Agreement by filing, within sixty (60)

12

days after the Notice Deadline set by the Court, written objections with the Clerk of the

13

Court as provided by the Court’s Order of Preliminary Approval of Settlement. Responses by BKC and Class Counsel to any timely-filed objections shall be made no

14

less than five (5) days before the Fairness Hearing as provided by the Court’s Order.

15 13
16

Notice

17

13.1

Notice of this Agreement (the “Injunctive Notice”), which shall be in a form approved by the Court, will be provided to Class Members informing them of: (1) a general

18

description of the injunctive terms of this Agreement; and (2) their right to object to the

Agreement.

19

20 13.2 Notice of this Agreement (the “Damages Notice”), which shall be in a form approved by the Court, will be provided to the Damages Claimants informing them of: (1) a general

21

description of the terms of this Agreement; and (2) their right to object to the Agreement;

and (3) the prerequisites for recovery of damages. 22

23 13.3 The Notice, and the plan for providing notice must satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to the extent applicable and applicable legal precedent, and

24

must be approved by the Court. In their motion seeking preliminary approval of the

Agreement, the Parties will propose a Notice Deadline and the proposed Notice Deadline

25

will be as soon as reasonably possible.

26

27

28
CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page22 of 158

1 2 14

Judgment, Final Approval and Dismissal.

3 14.1 At the time of the Fairness Hearing, the Parties shall jointly request that the Court enter a

Final Judgment and Order in a form agreeable to the Parties granting Final Approval of

4

this Agreement and Finally Certifying the Class(es) for Settlement Purposes Only.

5

Among other things, the Final Judgment and Order shall attach this Agreement as an

exhibit and shall provide that the Court retains jurisdiction through the Term of the

6

Agreement in order to enforce this Agreement.

7 14.2 This Lawsuit shall be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules

8

of Civil Procedure, no later than thirty (30) days following the expiration of the Term of

this Agreement.

9

14.3 The Court will retain continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the Parties, including

10

jurisdiction over the members of the Class(es), for purposes of enforcing, implementing,

11

and interpreting this Settlement.

12 15
13

Terms Not Confidential; Communication with the Press.

14 15.1 The terms of this Agreement shall not be confidential.

15 15.2 However, Class Counsel and Named Plaintiffs have agreed not to issue a press release concerning the Agreement.
16

17

15.3

Class Counsel or BKC may discuss the Agreement with members of the media provided that neither shall make any statement to the media, written or verbal, that is inconsistent

18

with the fact that BKC has denied all allegations of discrimination, no finding has been

made against BKC, and that BKC, as part of the settlement process, has worked

19

diligently and in good faith to ensure accessibility for the disabled at the Remaining

20

BKLs, nor that is inconsistent with the Parties’ obligation under Paragraph 24 hereof. Neither class counsel nor class plaintiffs shall attempt to characterize the size of the

21

settlement vis a vis other cases in any extra judicial statement, nor shall they make

mention of the role or participation of BKC’s insurance carriers in any such media

22

statements or otherwise.

23 24 16

Releases

25 16.1 Release of Claims for Injunctive Relief

26 16.1.1 Effective on the date of Final Approval, Named Plaintiffs and all Class Members and each

27

of their spouses, executors, successors, heirs, assigns, administrators, agents and

representatives (collectively, the “Injunctive Releasing Parties”), in consideration of the

28

relief set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is expressly acknowledged, unconditionally

CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page23 of 158

1

and forever do fully and finally release, acquit, and forever discharge BKC and the Franchisees, as well as their present, former and future parents, subsidiaries, officers,

2

directors, employees, shareholders, administrators, executors, affiliates, insurers, attorneys,

successors, assigns, and guarantors and all persons or entities that own, operate or lease the

3

Remaining BKLs covered by this Decree (the “BKC Parties”) from the Released Injunctive

4

Claims as defined below.

5 16.1.2 The “Released Injunctive Claims” are any and all claims, rights, demands, charges,

complaints, actions, suits and causes of action, whether known or unknown, suspected or

6

unsuspected, accrued or unaccrued, for injunctive, declaratory or other non-monetary

7

relief, however described, based on conduct preceding Final Approval of this Agreement

that were brought, could have been brought or could be brought now or in the future that

8

relate in any way to the accessibility of the Remaining BKLs to persons who use

wheelchairs or scooters under: 9

10

16.1.2.1

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et

11

seq., including all applicable rules, regulations, and standards thereunder;

12

16.1.2.2

Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51, et seq., and § 54, et seq., including all applicable

13

rules and regulations and standards thereunder;

14

16.1.2.3

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24 and all rules and regulations promulgated

15

thereunder, and any other provision of California law to the extent it grants a right

of action for alleged violations of the foregoing; and

16

17

16.1.2.4

Any state or local statutory, administrative, regulatory or code provisions

18

that either (a) directly incorporate Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act or any of the rules or regulations promulgated thereunder or (b) set forth standards

19

or obligations coterminous with or equivalent to Title III of the Americans with

Disabilities Act or any of the rules or regulations promulgated thereunder. 20

21 16.1.3 The “Released Injunctive Claims” also include all claims, rights, demands, charges,

22

complaints, actions, suits, causes of action or liabilities of any kind for injunctive, declaratory or other non-monetary relief, however described, (collectively, for this

23

subparagraph, “claims”) regarding the accessibility of the Remaining BKLs to the mobility

impaired that arise during the Term of this Decree. 24

25 16.1.4 To the extent permitted by law, the final entry of this Decree will be fully binding and effective for purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel upon BKC, its franchisees and

26

the Class Members with respect to claims for injunctive or declaratory relief under Title III

of the ADA, and any other federal, state, or local law, rule or regulation, order, or

27

ordinance relating to or concerning access for persons with mobility disabilities at the

28
CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page24 of 158

1

Remaining BKLs. Nothing in this Section, however, will prevent Class Counsel from enforcing this Decree.

2

3 16.2 Release of Claims for Accessibility Damages (Named Plaintiffs and Damages Claimants Only).
4

5 16.2.1 Effective on the date of Final Approval, Named Plaintiffs and all Damages Claimants and each of their spouses, executors, successors, heirs, assigns, administrators, agents and

6

representatives (collectively, the “Damages Releasing Parties”), in consideration of the

relief set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is expressly acknowledged, unconditionally

7

and forever do fully and finally release, acquit, and forever discharge the BKC Parties from

8

the Released Damages Claims as defined below.

9 16.2.2 The “Released Damages Claims” are any and all claims, rights, demands, charges,

complaints, actions, suits, causes of action, and liabilities of any kind, whether known or

10

unknown, suspected or unsuspected, accrued or unaccrued, for changes if any kind

11

(including, but not limited to, statutory, actual, compensatory, consequential, special,

emotional harm or punitive damages) based on conduct preceding Final Approval of this

12

Agreement that were brought, could have been brought or could be brought now or in the

13

future that relate in any way to the accessibility of the Remaining BKLs to persons who use wheelchairs or scooters.

14

15 16.2.3 The “Released Damages Claims” also include all claims, rights, demands, charges, complaints, actions, suits, causes of action or liabilities of any kind for statutory, actual,

16

compensatory, consequential, special, emotional harm or punitive damages relating to the

17

accessibility of the Remaining BKLs to the Named Plaintiffs and Damages Claimants that arise during the Term of this Agreement.

18

19 16.2.4 To the extent permitted by law, the final entry of this Decree will be fully binding and

effective for purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel upon BKC, its franchisees,

20

Named Plaintiffs and all Damages Claimants with respect to claims of any kind for

21

damages or monetary relief (including statutory, actual, compensatory, consequential, special, emotional harm or punitive damages) relating in any way to the accessibility of the

22

Remaining BKLs.

23

16.2.5 Known or Unknown Claims. The Damages Releasing Parties and the Injunctive Releasing

24

Parties shall collectively be referred to as the “Releasing Parties.” The Releasing Parties

25

understand and expressly agree that this AGREEMENT extends to all claims of every

nature and kind, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, past, present, or future,

26

arising from or attributable to any conduct of the BKC Parties, whether known by the

Releasing Parties or whether or not any Releasing Party believes he or she may have any

27

claims, and that any and all rights granted to the Releasing Party under Section 1542 of the

28

California Civil Code or any analogous state law or federal law or regulations, are hereby

CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page25 of 158

1

expressly WAIVED, if applicable. Said Section 1542 of the California Civil Code reads as follows:

2

3

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS

WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT

4

TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF

5

EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM

OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR

6

HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.

7 17
8

No Third Party Beneficiaries.

9 17.1 Nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended to or shall confer upon any person or entity not a Party to this Agreement any right, benefit or remedy of any nature

10

whatsoever under or by reason of this Agreement.

11 17.2 Individual class members shall not be deemed to be third-party beneficiaries of this

12

Agreement, and they shall have no right to bring any action for any alleged violation of

this Settlement. Only the Named Plaintiffs through Class Counsel may seek to enforce

13

the terms of this Agreement through the Dispute Resolution process provided for herein

14

or before the Court. To the extent individual class members have complaints regarding BKC’s implementation or performance of the terms of this Agreement, they must bring

15

them to the attention of the Named Plaintiffs and/or Class Counsel.

16 18
17
18
19

Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains all the agreements, conditions, promises and covenants among BKC, Named Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, the Class, and the Damages Claimants regarding matters set forth in it and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, drafts, representations or understandings, either written or oral, with respect to the subject matter of the present Agreement.

20 19 21

Communications to BKC and Class Counsel. All notices or communications required by this Agreement shall be in writing by facsimile and U.S. Mail or overnight delivery service addressed as follows:

22 19.1 To Named Plaintiffs, Class Counsel or the Class:
23

24 25 26 27
and 28

Bill Lann Lee Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C. 476 – 9th Street Oakland, CA 94607 510.839.6824 Fax: 510.839.7839
Amy F. Robertson

CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page26 of 158

1

Timothy P. Fox Fox & Robertson, P.C.

2

104 Broadway

Suite 400

3

Denver, CO 80203

4

303.595.9700

facsimile: 303.595.9705

5

19.2 To Burger King Corporation 6

7

5505 Blue Lagoon Drive

8th Floor - Legal Department

8

Miami, FL 33126

9

Craig Prusher, Esq.

10

Burger King Corporation

5505 Blue Lagoon Drive

11

8th Floor - Legal Department

12

Miami, FL 33126 305.378.238

13

Fax: 305.378.3190

14

Michael Joblove

15

Jonathan E. Perlman Genovese Joblove & Battista, P.A.

16

Miami Tower, 44th Floor

100 S.E. Second Street

17

Miami, FL

18

305.349.2300 Fax: 305.349.2310

19

Either party may change the individuals to whom notices and communications

20

required by this Agreement shall be sent by providing the other party with written

21

notification that it wishes to do so.

22 20 23

Modification. Prior to Final Approval, this Agreement can only be amended by written agreement of the Parties hereto. Following Final Approval, no modification of this Agreement shall be effective unless it is pursuant to Court Order.

24 21
25
26

Severability. If any provision or any part of this Agreement thereof shall at any time be held unlawful, or inconsistent with applicable law, in whole or in part, under any federal, state, county, municipal or other law, ruling or regulation, then the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain effective and enforceable.

27 22
28

Drafting of this Agreement. This Agreement is deemed to have been drafted by all Parties hereto, as a result of arm’s length negotiations among the Parties. Whereas all

CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page27 of 158

1
2 23
3
4

Parties have contributed to the preparation of this Agreement, it shall not be construed more strictly against one Party than another.
Execution by Facsimile and in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the Parties hereto by facsimile and in separate counterparts, and all such counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same agreement.

5 24 6 7

Duty to Support and Defend Agreement. Named Plaintiffs, Class Counsel and BKC each agree to abide by all of the terms of this Agreement in good faith and to support it fully, and shall use their best efforts to defend this Agreement from any legal challenge, whether by appeal or collateral attack.

8 25 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 26 17 18 27 19 20 21 28 22 23 24 29 25

Force Majeure. Failure of BKC to perform any action required by this Decree will not subject it to any liability or remedy for damages or otherwise if such failure is caused in whole or in part by circumstances beyond the control of BKC, including but not limited to acts of God, fires, accidents, earthquakes, explosions, floods, wars, labor disputes or shortages, riots, sabotage, compliance with any law or direction made by any governmental authority (including permitting), unavailability of disabled-accessible equipment or controls, or any similar or dissimilar circumstances beyond the control of BKC; provided, however, that BKC has timely commenced the procedures and modifications required by this Decree in good faith and with due diligence. If the force majeure requires only a delay in BKC’s compliance with the terms of this Decree, then the time requirements established in this Decree will be delayed only to the extent required by the force majeure.
Amounts Paid Not Penalty. It is understood that no amount paid or expended by BKC in its performance of this Decree constitutes a penalty, fine, punitive damages, or other form of assessment for any alleged claim or offense.
Receipt of Advice of Counsel. The Parties acknowledge and warrant to each other that they have fully read this Decree, have received independent legal advice regarding the advisability of entering into this Decree, and fully understand its effect.
Power and Authority. The Parties represent that they have the power and authority to execute and deliver this Decree and to perform the obligations hereunder, and that each person executing this Decree on each party’s behalf has been authorized to sign on behalf of the respective party and to bind each to the terms of this Decree.
Continuing Jurisdiction. The Parties agree that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California shall have continuing jurisdiction throughout the Term of this Agreement to interpret and enforce this Agreement.

26 30 Deadlines. The Parties and the Court recognize that from time to time unforeseen events,

27

such as exigent business circumstances, labor disputes, natural disasters, personnel issues,

and negotiations with third parties, cause delays in the accomplishment of objectives no

28

matter how well intentioned and diligent the Parties may be. Accordingly, with regard to

CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page28 of 158

1

the provisions of this Agreement that require that certain acts be taken within specified periods, the Parties understand and agree that Court approval shall not be required for

2

reasonable extensions of deadlines. In the event that any Party determines that an action

required by this Agreement cannot be taken within the specified time period, that Party

3

shall promptly notify the other Parties that it anticipates a delay, the reasons for the delay

4

and a proposed alternative deadline. The Parties shall endeavor to cooperate in

reasonably rescheduling such deadlines. However, if the other Party does not agree to the

5

proposed delay, the Parties shall submit the matter to Dispute Resolution.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
CASE NO. C-11-00667 WHA Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page29 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page30 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page31 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page32 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page33 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page34 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page35 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page36 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page37 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page38 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page39 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page40 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page41 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page42 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page43 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page44 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page45 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page46 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page47 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page48 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page49 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page50 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page51 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page52 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page53 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page54 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page55 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page56 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page57 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page58 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page59 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page60 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page61 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page62 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page63 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page64 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page65 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page66 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page67 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page68 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page69 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page70 of 158

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page71 of 158
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT A

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page72 of 158
Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C­11­00667­WHA (JSC)) ­ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Store # Location Issue

Remedy

609

Exterior South entrance: A sign displaying an ISA is mounted to a door that has been disabled and abandoned. Remove ISA sign.

Exterior A new 10'‐6" long section of walkway that provide access to the store from W. Whittier Blvd. slopes as much as 9.1%; it lacks handrails.

BKC will provide photographic evidence demonstrating that this element is in compliance with the DOJ Standards and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, or, in the absence of such evidence, this issue will be remedied.

Exterior A roughly 12' long section of the walkway that provides access to the store from W. Whittier Blvd. has cross slopes as high as 4.8% (vs. 2% maximum allowed).

BKC will provide photographic evidence demonstrating that an alternate route to this restaurant exists that is in compliance with the DOJ Standards and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, or, in the absence of such evidence, this issue will be remedied.

Exterior

A new raised concrete door landing and a sloped walkway have been added inside the exterior dining area. The landing is elevated 4 1/2" ‐ 5" above the surrounding pavement, and no warning curb is provided.

A warning curb will be added.

Exterior

A total of 11 tables are provided in the exterior dining/play structure area. If one considers the fixed seats at the round tables for 2 people each, there are 56 seating positions. If one considers them 1 person each, there are 39 seating positions. Depending on how one figures the total seating count, 2 or 3 accessible seating positions are required. Fixed seats have been removed at 3 of the round tables, but table top support braces reduce the clear knee space depth to 12 1/2" (vs. 19" minimum required). One of the rectangular tables provides sufficient knee space width and depth, but only 26" clear height to an angled metal table top support bracket. These brackets also create a potential safety hazard.

This seating area will be modified to have at least 3 accessible seating positions with dimensions that comply with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ Standards.

Exterior

Exterior dining and play area: Aisles to seating areas and and the play structure are reduced by furniture Relocate furniture to ensure accessible route. to as little as 16" wide, and are typically < 30" wide (vs. 36" minimum required; 48" minimum per the CBC when the occupant load is > 10).

Exterior The designated van accessible parking access aisle is 91 ½" wide measured to the centerline of the striping Restripe to compliant dimensions. (vs. 96" minimum required).

Exterior

A new 10'‐6" long section of walkway that provide access to the store from W. Whittier Blvd. slopes as much as 9.1% (vs. 8.33% maximum allowed), and its top landing slopes as much as 3.9% (vs. 2% maximum allowed).

BKC will provide photographic evidence demonstrating that this element is in compliance with the DOJ Standards and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, or, in the absence of such evidence, this issue will be remedied.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 1 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page73 of 158
Remedy

609

Interior

A total of 21 tables with 70 seating positions are provided in the restaurant. 4 accessible seating positions are required. None of the tables are identified as accessible (marked with an ISA), but there are 4 tables that might be considered to be accessible. One of these is located by the men's restroom. It appears as though a bench has been removed in order to make this table accessible, but there is not enough clear disatnce between the table and the wall for a wheelchair user to access the wide side of the table, and the toilet room door swings across the clear floor space needed for one to access the table's end. Three other potentially accessible tables are provided along an interior wall. Compliant knee clearance is only provided if one approaches them from the end, but this creates two issues. First, the tables are only 24" wide, and second, the adjacent aisle is only 51" wide. A wheelchair user with legs tucked the full 19" under the table would reduce the aisle width to 24".

This seating area will be modified to have at least 4 accessible seating positions with dimensions that comply with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ Standards.

Men's Toilet

The paper towel dispenser, mounted 3 3/4" from the strike side of the toilet room door, projects up to 9" Relocate paper towel dispenser to compliant location. from the wall, and obstructs the required push side door maneuvering clear area.

Men's Toilet

The toilet paper dispenser (recessed combo unit) is mounted 41" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge of the dispenser (vs. 36" maximum required).

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Women's A coat hook is mounted at 56 1/2" AFF, side reach (vs. 54" AFF maximum allowed).

Lower coat hook to 48 inches.

726

Exterior

Tow‐away warning signs are provided at both of the driveway entrances from S. Euclid Street, but the phone number on one is in poor condition, the phone number on the other is obstructed by stickers and graffitti, and both signs lack a reclaiming address

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior Southwest entrance: The exterior concrete pavement within the required pull side door maneuvering clear area slopes up to 4.1% (vs. 2% maximum allowed).

Replace section of pavement with excessive slope.

Exterior Northwest (main) entrance double door: The exterior concrete pavement within the required pull side door maneuvering clear area slopes up to 4.1% (vs. 2% maximum allowed).

Replace section of pavement with excessive slope.

Interior

A total of 28 tables with77 seating positions are provided in the restaurant. 4 designated accessible seating positions are provided; 4 are required. Of these, one table is positioned such that a wheelchair user, with legs tucked the full 19" under the table, would reduce the clear aisle width to 21" (vs. 36" minimum required; 44" minimum per the CBC if the occupant load is > 10).

Relocate or reconfigure to ensure 36" wide access aisle when accessible seating position is occupied.

Men's Toilet

Coin‐operated door hardware with a thumb‐turn lock requires tight grasping, pinching, and/or twisting of Replace coin‐operated door hardware with compliant

the wrist to operate.

hardware.

Women's Coin‐operated door hardware with a thumb‐turn lock requires tight grasping, pinching, and/or twisting of Replace coin‐operated door hardware with compliant

Toilet the wrist to operate.

hardware.

733

Exterior Tow‐away warning signs (2) do not provide a reclaiming address.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior A designated new accesible route has been provided from the property to the public sidewalk along Painter Avenue. No signage is provided to identify it as such.

Provide appropriate signage.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 2 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page74 of 158
Remedy

733

Exterior

5 exterior dining tables with a total of 20 seating positions are provided outside the restaurant; 1 accessible table/ seating position is required. A table is designated as accessible, and it meets the necessary requirements, except that a large piece of the underside of the table is torn, and it hangs down into and obstructs the required knee space. (A pole‐mounted accessible parking sign partially obstructs access to the table, but the unobstructed section is still > 30" wide.)

Repair underside of table.

Exterior

Southeast entrance: No ISA signage is provided on the door. (Note: A sign displaying an ISA and an arrow pointing toward the south entrance has been installed on the glass between the this door and it. They are just about 5' apart. There is no apparent reason why this entrance should not be considered accessible.)

Provide appropriate signage.

Men's Toilet

A cover is provided for the hot water supply under the lavatory, but it is not properly installed, and it does Cover hot water supply line. not cover the whole line.

Women's Door locking hardware is mounted 53 1/2" AFF (vs. 48" AFF maximum allowed).

Lower door locking hardware.

780

Exterior No tow‐away warning sign is provided at the E. 8th Street driveway entrance to the property.

Provide required tow‐away signs.

Exterior A 2' wide strip of concrete pavement along the edge of the delineated route from the designated accessible parking spaces to the store has cross slopes between 6.8%‐12.2%.

Black out the previously‐delineated area with excessive slope. See, e.g., Photo MVBK011628.

Exterior The tow‐away warning sign at the Highland Avenue driveway entrance does not provide a reclaiming address or phone number.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior The southeast entry door lacks an ISA. This door provides access to the store from the designated accessible parking spaces.

Provide appropriate signage.

Interior

Play structure area matting is raised 2 3/4" above the concrete pavement. Ramped edging slopes up to 29.9%. One must cross this matting in order to reach the exterior exit door from the play area.

This issue will be remedied.

Men's Toil Self‐closing lavatory faucet valves stay on for 4.19 and 2.84 seconds (vs. 10 seconds minimum required). Replace/adjust self‐closing faucet hardware.

Men's Toilet

Insulation is provided for the lavatory drain and supply lines, but it is loose and poorly installed. The hot Cover drain and lines. supply line, and both the hot and the cold supply angle stops are not completely covered.

Women's The clearance below the side grab bar to the toilet paper dispenser is 5/8" (vs. 1 1/2" minimum required). Raise grab bars one inch.

Women's The toilet paper dispenser is mounted so that its dispensing point is located 17” AFF (vs. 19” minimum

Toilet

AFF required).

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Women's The hot water supply line is not covered.

Cover hot water supply line.

814

Exterior The tow‐away warning sign at the N. Johnson Avenue driveway entrance does not provide a reclaiming address or phone number.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 3 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page75 of 158
Remedy

814

Exterior No tow‐away warning signs are provided at any of the possible entrances onto the property from west of Provide required tow‐away sign. the store.

Men's Toilet

Covers are provided for the lavatory supply lines, but they are improperly installed. Both the hot and cold Cover angle stops. side angle stops (with sharp ends) are exposed.

Women's A lavatory drain line is not completely covered.

Cover lavatory drain line.

817

Exterior The tow‐away warning sign at the Mission Avenue driveway entrance does not provide a reclaiming address, and the phone number numerals are < 1" tall.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior The tow‐away warning signs at the two Olive Street driveway entrances do not provide reclaiming addresses, and the phone number numerals are < 1" tall.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior

Northwest entrance: Push side forward approach access is obstructed by a double‐wide combo trashcan and tray return unit. The clear width beyond the strike side of the door = 2 3/4" vs. 12" minimum required when the door has both a latch and a closer. The latch was engaged at the time of the survey. Hinge approach space is available, but that is not the way one would likely approach the door.

Remove/replace trash can/tray return unit to ensure compliant maneuvering clearance.

Men's Toilet

Coin‐operated door hardware with a thumb‐turn lock requires tight grasping, pinching, and/or twisting of Replace coin‐operated door hardware with compliant

the wrist to operate.

hardware.

Women's The rear grab bar is positioned such that only 2 of the 3 available mounting screws may be utilized. It is Relocate grab bar so that it can be properly attached to

Toilet

questionable whether or not the bar, therefore, can support the required loads.

the wall.

Women's Coin‐operated door hardware with a thumb‐turn lock requires tight grasping, pinching, and/or twisting of Replace coin‐operated door hardware with compliant

Toilet the wrist to operate.

hardware.

835

Exterior

West entrance, right door: a broken concrete patch along the outside edge of the threshold creates an overall threshold height of 3/4" (vs. 1/2" maximum allowed), and a place for one's wheels to get stuck immediately prior to attempting to rise over the threshold.

Patch concrete to eliminate change in level.

Exterior The tow‐away warning sign at the Rosecrans Street driveway entrance does not provide a reclaiming address.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Men's Toilet Room

The toilet paper dispenser is mounted so that its dispensing point is located 14 1/2” AFF (vs. 19” minimum Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location. AFF required). It is also located approximately 59" (failed to measure specifically) from the water closet back wall to the far edge of the dispenser (vs. 36" maximum allowed).

Men's Toilet

The urinal flush mechanism requires a 22# force to operate (vs. 5# maximum required).

Adjust or replace flush mechanism to achieve compliant force.

Men's Toil Insulation is provided for the lavatory drain line, but the hot supply line is not covered.

Cover hot water supply line.

Women's Insulation is provided for the lavatory drain line, but the hot supply line is not covered.

Cover hot water supply line.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 4 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page76 of 158
Remedy

835

Women's The toilet paper dispenser is mounted 17 1/2” AFF measured to its dispensing point (vs. 19” minimum AFF Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Toilet

required), and 49" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge of the dispenser (vs. 36"

Room maximum allowed).

Women's Self‐closing lavatory faucets stay on for 5.56 and 0.72 seconds (vs. 10 seconds minimum required).

Replace/adjust self‐closing faucet hardware.

896

Exterior Tow‐away warning signs (2) do not provide a reclaiming address.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior

Signage on the outside of the south entrance door directs patrons to the west entrance for accessibility. The noncompliant issues related to this door are noted on other lines herein. There is no warning or directional signage inside the store to indicate the direction to or location of the accessible exit.

Add required signage inside the restaurant.

Men's Toilet

Coin‐operated door hardware with a thumb‐turn lock requires tight grasping, pinching, and/or twisting of Replace coin‐operated door hardware with compliant

the wrist to operate.

hardware.

Men's Toil Sharp angle stops are exposed beneath the lavatory.

Cover angle stops.

Women's Coin‐operated door hardware with a thumb‐turn lock requires tight grasping, pinching, and/or twisting of Replace coin‐operated door hardware with compliant

Toilet

the wrist to operate.

hardware.

Women's Sharp angle stops and a hose clamp are exposed beneath the lavatory.

Cover angle stops and hose clamp.

912

Exterior Tow‐away warning signs (3) do not provide a reclaiming address.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

916

Exterior

Southwest entrance: This doorway is not identified with an ISA; a pole‐mounted sign in front of the designated accessible parking spaces directs patrons to the northwest entrance. The noncompliant issues related to this door are noted on other lines herein. There also is no warning or directional signage inside the store to indicate the direction to or location of the accessible exit.

Add required signage inside the restaurant.

Exterior North entrance: A sign displaying an ISA is mounted to a door that has been disabled and abandoned. Remove ISA sign.

Men's Toilet Room

The toilet paper dispenser is mounted 35 3/4" from the water closet back wall measured to the near edge of the dispenser, which has been turned 90° from the typical mounting direction for this type of dispenser. As the paper is used up and the roll is diminished in size, the paper can be located as far as 39" from the rear wall (vs. 36" maximum allowed).

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Men's Toilet Room

Door hardware with an integral thumb‐turn lock requires tight pinching and twisting of the wrist to operate.

Burger King provided photographs to Plaintiffs of this element, and Plaintiffs acknowledge that if these photographs accurately depict the current condition of this element, then no changes are necessary.

Men's Toil The water closet flush valve is located on the narrow side of the toilet.

Relocate flush control to wide side of toilet.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 5 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page77 of 158
Remedy

916

Men's Toilet Room

The toilet paper dispenser is mounted 36" from the water closet back wall measured to the near edge of the dispenser, which has been turned 90° from the typical mounting direction for this type of dispenser. As the paper is used up and the roll is diminished in size, the paper can be located as far as 39" from the rear wall (vs. 36" maximum allowed).

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Women's The lavatory drain line is not insulated or otherwise covered to prevent contact. Toilet Room

Burger King provided photographs to Plaintiffs of this element, and Plaintiffs acknowledge that if these photographs accurately depict the current condition of this element, then no changes are necessary.

918

Exterior Tow‐away warning signs (2) do not provide a reclaiming address.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior

An 8' long ramp is located along the delineated accessible route from the public sidewalk and the designated accessible parking spaces to the store. Its bottom landing is too short (60" long vs. 72" minimum required per the CBC), it lacks a handrail on one side, and the handrail that is provided does not extend 12" beyond the bottom of the ramp, as required.

Compliant handrail will be added.

Men's Toilet

There are an unusually large number of supply lines under the lavatory. Some are covered to prevent contact some are not. Angle stops are not covered.

Cover all angle stops to prevent contact.

Men's Toilet

The toilet paper dispenser is mounted 42" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge of the dispenser.

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Men's Toil The accessible toilet stall door is not self‐closing.

Install self‐closing hardware.

Men's Toilet

The toilet paper dispenser is mounted 42" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge of the dispenser.

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Women's The toilet paper dispenser is mounted 39 1/2" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Toilet

of the dispenser.

Women's Covers are provided for the lavatory drain and supply lines, but they are improperly installed. The top Toilet section of the drain line, a portion of the hot supply line, and the cold supply angle stop are not Room completely covered.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Women's The accessible toilet stall door is not self‐closing.

Install self‐closing hardware.

919

Exterior Tow‐away warning signs (3) do not provide a reclaiming address. One of them also does not provide a phone number.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior

A new multi‐switchback ramp has been installed to link the public sidewalk along Sepulveda Blvd. to the store. A railing is provided along both sides of the ramp for its entire length, but it is mounted too high to qualify as a compliant ramp handrail (41 3/4" ‐ 60 1/4" AFF vs. 34" ‐ 38" AFF required), and required extensions beyond tops and bottoms of ramp runs are not provided.

Replace handrail at compliant height.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 6 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page78 of 158
Remedy

919

Exterior

Play structure area matting is raised 2 1/2" above the concrete pavement. Ramped edging slopes up to This issue will be remedied. 26.4%. The matting obstructs access to the entrance to the play structure and, except to the open end of the (intended) accessible table, it obstructs access to the exterior dining area.

Women's The clearance beneath the rear grab bar to the toilet flush mechanism is 7/8" (vs. 1 1/2" minimum

Toilet

required).

Raise grab bars one inch.

Women's The toilet room door is equipped with a power‐asist device. The door requires excessive force to stop

Toilet

from closing under the power of the device. A 31# force measurement was taken, and the door

Room continued to close. The door is required to stop with a maximum allowed force of 15#.

Adjust power‐assist door.

Women's The toilet paper dispenser is mounted 39 1/2" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location. Toilet of the dispenser.

Women's A semi‐recessed trash can (and paper towel combo) unit reduces the clear width of the clear floor space

Toilet

in front of the lavatory to 31 1/4". Because the lavatory is located in an alcove that is > 24" deep, a

Room minimum clear width of 36" is required.

Move trash can/paper towel combo to ensure clear width of 36" in alcove.

943

Exterior Access aisle markings are in poor condition; much of the corss hatching and "NO PARKING" has worn away, and are no longer readable.

Repaint to ensure legible lines.

Exterior South entrances: Clear‐on‐blue ISAs installed on 3 of the doors provide very little contrast and are difficult to see, especially from a distance.

Replace ISA signs.

Exterior East entrance: The exterior concrete pavement within the required pull side door maneuvering clear area Interior signage will be added indicating that this is not

slopes up to 3.9% (vs. 2% maximum allowed).

an accessible entrance.

Exterior

East entrance: This doorway is not identified with an ISA, and there is no signage outside the store to direct patrons to the other entrance. The noncompliant issues related to this door are noted on other lines herein. There also is no warning or directional signage inside the store to indicate the direction to or location of the accessible exit.

Required signage will be added inside restaurant.

Men's Toil The lavatory drain and hot water supply lines are not fully covered to prevent contact.

Cover drain and supply lines.

Men's Toilet

The toilet paper dispenser is mounted 42" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge of the dispenser (vs. 36" maximum required).

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Men's Toilet Room

The floor in front of the water closet slopes up to 4.0% to drain.

A plate identical, or functionally equivalent, to the plate shown in photos 1‐3 attached hereto will be installed over this drain.

Women's The drain line under the lavatory is not completely covered.

Cover drain line.

Women's The toilet paper dispenser is mounted so that its dispensing point is located 15 1/4” AFF (vs. 19” minimum Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Toilet

AFF required), and 47 1/2" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge of the dispenser (vs.

Room 36" maximum required).

975

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 7 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page79 of 158
Remedy

975

Exterior Tow‐away warning signs (2) do not provide a reclaiming address, and one does not provide an area code Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s). for the reclaiming phone number.

Exterior

Two designated accessible parking spaces are provided in the lot on the south side of the building. The standard designated accessible parking space is 15'‐6" long (vs. 18' long minimum per the CBC). This measurement is based on the location of the wheelstop, and the need to maintain a 48" minimum wide accessible route in front of the space that does not include the steeply‐sloping gutter.

This issue has been, or will be, remedied

Exterior

A roughly 10 sq. ft. section of ashpalt pavement along the delineated accessible route in front of the designated accessible parking spaces is sunken slightly, resulting in cross slopes as high as 4.3% (vs. 2% maximum allowed).

This issue has been, or will be, remedied

Exterior East entrance: The clear‐on‐blue ISA provides little contrast, and is difficult to make out, especially from a Provide appropriate signage. distance.

Exterior North entrance: An ISA is not provided.

Provide appropriate signage.

Men's Toilet Room

The toilet paper dispenser is mounted 16 5/8” AFF measured to its dispensing point (vs. 19” minimum AFF Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location. required), and 38" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge of the dispenser (vs. 36" maximum allowed).

Men's Toil The lavatory drain line is not covered at all; the hot water supply line is not completely covered.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Men's Toilet

The clearance beneath the side grab bar to the toilet paper dispenser is 15/16" (vs. 1 1/2" minimum required).

Raise grab bars one inch.

Men's Toilet

U‐shaped pull hardware is provided on both sides of the accessible toilet stall door, but it is not located below the latch, as required.

Move pull hardware below latch.

Women's Toilet Room

The only trashcan currently provided in the toilet room is a loose unit located in the accessible toilet stall, where it obstructs the required stall door pull side door maneuvering clear area. If located elsewhere in the stall, it will obstruct the required water closet clear floor space. There appears to be no other location in the toilet room where it can be placed where it will not obstruct some other required clear floor area.

Install wall‐mounted trash can in compliant location.

Women's The accessible toilet stall door is not self‐closing.

Install self‐closing hardware.

Women's U‐shaped pull hardware is provided on both sides of the accessible toilet stall door, but it is not located Toilet below the latch, as required.

Move pull hardware below the latch.

Women's The toilet paper dispenser is mounted too low. Its dispensing point is located 16 3/4” AFF (vs. 19”

Toilet

minimum AFF required).

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Women's The clearance beneath the side grab bar to the toilet paper dispenser is 3/4" (vs. 1 1/2" minimum Toilet required).

Raise grab bars one inch.

1036

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 8 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page80 of 158
Remedy

1036

Exterior

Tow‐away warning signs (3) do not provide a reclaiming address, and they are covered with graffiti, making them illegible. During the course of the survey, at the direction of one of the owners, a BK employee worked to clean the graffiti iff of the signs. The latter photographs show the results of that endeavor.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior Play structure area matting is raised 2 1/2" ‐ 2 3/4" above the concrete pavement. Ramped edging slopes This issue will be remedied. up to 28.7%.

Exterior South entrance: Play structure matting is raised 2 1/2" above the door landing surface. It is located within and therefore obstructs the required pull side door maneuvering clear area.

Replace matting with solution that provides compliant change of level and maneuvering clearance.

Men's Toil The urinal rim is 18 1/2" AFF.

Lower urinal.

1038

Exterior Play structure area matting is raised 2 1/2" ‐ 2 3/4" above the concrete pavement. Ramped edging slopes This issue will be remedied. up to 28.7%.

Exterior Tow‐away warning signs (2) do not provide a reclaiming address.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Interior A total of 22 tables with 76 seating positions are provided in the restaurant. 2 accessible tables are provided; 2 are required. 2 accessible seating positions are provided; 4 are required.

An accessible seating position that complies with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ Standards will be added, or tables will be removed to achieve compliant ratio.

Men's Toil The hot water supply line is not covered.

Cover hot water supply line.

1346

Exterior

3 designated accessible parking spaces are provided in the east parking lot (only 2 are required). Two are located directly adjacent to the east side of the building. The designated van accessible access aisle shared by the two spaces is 91 1/2" wide measured from centerline‐to‐centerline of the striping (vs. 96" minimum required).

Restripe to compliant dimensions.

Exterior Tow‐away warning sign at the Manchester Avenue driveway entrance does not provide a reclaiming address.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior No tow‐away warning sign is provided at the driveway entrance from Halldale Avenue.

Provide required tow‐away sign.

Men's Toilet

Coin‐operated door hardware with a thumb‐turn lock requires tight grasping, pinching, and/or twisting of Replace coin‐operated door hardware with compliant

the wrist to operate.

hardware.

Men's Toilet

A cover is provided for the hot water supply under the lavatory, but it is not properly installed, and it does Cover hot water supply line. not cover the whole line.

Men's Toilet Room

A double‐wide combo trashcan/tray return unit obstructs the required pull side door maneuvering clear area of the toilet room door (depth = 40 1/4" vs. 60" minimum required). The double‐wide unit could be switched‐out with the single wide unit located adjacent to the east entrance.

Replace double‐wide unit with single‐wide unit.

Women's Coin‐operated door hardware with a thumb‐turn lock requires tight grasping, pinching, and/or twisting of Replace coin‐operated door hardware with compliant

Toilet

the wrist to operate.

hardware.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 9 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page81 of 158
Remedy

1417

Exterior A designated accessible parking space is provided on the west side of the store. A fine sign (Minimum Fine $250) is not provided.

Add required signage.

Exterior

Tow‐away warning sign at the El Segundo Blvd. driveway entrance does not provide a reclaiming address or phone number. (NOTE: a noncompliant tow sign provided at one of 2 designated accessible parking spaces.)

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior

No tow‐away warning signage is provided at the southeast entrance onto the property from the adjacent property. Tow‐away warning signage at the driveway entrance to the adjacent property along El Segundo Blvd. lacks a reclaiming address and phone number. (NOTE: a noncompliant tow sign provided at one of 2 designated accessible parking spaces.)

Provide missing tow‐away sign and provide required information in existing tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior

A designated new accesible route has been provided from the property to the public sidewalk along El Segundo Blvd. A sign at the back of the sidewalk identifies the route for those approaching from the west, but it is one‐sided, and does not inform those approaching from the east. (NOTE: a noncompliant tow sign provided at one of 2 designated accessible parking spaces.)

Provide appropriate signage.

Men's Toilet

Coin‐operated door hardware with a thumb‐turn lock requires tight grasping, pinching, and/or twisting of Replace coin‐operated door hardware with compliant

the wrist to operate.

hardware.

Women's Coin‐operated door hardware with a thumb‐turn lock requires tight grasping, pinching, and/or twisting of Replace coin‐operated door hardware with compliant

Toilet the wrist to operate.

hardware.

Women's The toilet paper dispenser is mounted 39 1/2" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Toilet

of the dispenser.

Women's The soap dispenser is mounted 44 3/4" AFF to the center of its push pad (vs. 40" AFF maximum allowed). Lower soap dispenser.

1549

Exterior

A pedestrian route is delineated along one side of the Clinton Avenue drive entrance from the public sidewalk to the store. This route utilizes the access aisle of the designated accessible parking spaces to provide access to and from the store. There is an 18" long ramped concrete section at the back of the access aisle within the delineated route that slopes up to 11.4% (vs. 5% maximum or 8.33% maximum for a ramp).

Repave 18" section to create compliant slope.

Exterior The tow‐away warning sign at the Cedar Avenue driveway entrance lacks reclaiming address and an area Provide required signage and information. code for the reclaiming phone number.

Exterior No tow‐away warning sign is provided at the Clinton Avenue driveway entrance.

Provide required signage and information.

Exterior

A bus stop is located in front of the store on Cedar Avenue. There is no pedestrian‐only access to the store from it and the public sidewalks along Cedar and Clinton. A route is delineated along one side of the Clinton Avenue drive entrance from the public sidewalk to the store. There is no directional or identification signage near the bus stop on Cedar or near the delineated route from Clinton to inform patrons of its existence.

Provide appropriate signage.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 10 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page82 of 158
Remedy

1549

Exterior

A pedestrian route is delineated along one side of the Clinton Avenue drive entrance from the public

Restripe to show clearly a 48‐inch‐wide route that does

sidewalk to the store. The painted hatched route is in poor condition, and it is confusing. At one time, at not include the gutter.

least, it included a gutter where cross slopes up to 9.7% exist (vs. 2% maximum allowed).

Interior The main service counter is under construction.

Ensure lowered portions provide services equal to inaccessible portions.

Interior

A total of 12 tables with 41 seating positions are provided in the restaurant. 3 accessible seating positions are required. 1 table/seating position has been modified, presumably for accessibility. It provides the required knee space beneath the table, but the top is only 24" deep. If a wheelchair user were to utilize the full depth of the space dedicated to her, it would be difficult at best for a companion to make use of the opposing fixed bench. Even with this space, there are still 2 too few available.

This seating area will be modified to have at least 3 accessible seating positions with dimensions that comply with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ Standards.

Men's Toilet

Stall door: The toilet stall door is not properly set, and it binds in its jamb. It requires a force > 35# to close, and a similar force to open.

Repair stall door.

Men's Toil The stall door is not self‐closing.

Install self‐closing hardware.

Men's Toil The clearance below the side grab bar to the toilet paper dispenser is 1/2" (vs. 1 1/2" minimum required). Reconfigure to provide compliant clearance.

Men's Toilet Room

The toilet paper dispenser is mounted 17" AFF to its dispensing point (vs. 19" AFF minimum required), and 40" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge of the dispenser (vs. 36" maximum required).

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Men's Toil The soap dispenser is mounted 53 1/4" AFF to the push pad (vs. 40" AFF maximum allowed).

Lower soap dispenser to max. 40" AFF.

Men's Toil The floor drain cover is not fixed in place, creating a potential hazard.

Fix floor drain.

Women's The stall door is not self‐closing.

Install self‐closing hardware.

Women's The toilet paper dispenser is mounted 16 3/8" AFF to its dispensing point (vs. 19" AFF minimum

Toilet

required), and 45" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge of the dispenser (vs. 36"

Room maximum required).

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

1646

Exterior North entrance: The ISA is installed on the inside face of the glass door. The glare is so bad that it is very Provide appropriate signage. difficult to see, especially from a distance.

Exterior Northeast entrance: The push side door maneuvering clear area width = 0" measured to the play structure vs. 12" minimum required. The door hardware/latch is operational.

Signage will be added directing persons with disabilities to double‐door entrance, the door will be unlatched during business hours, or required push side clearance will be provided.

Interior Door from dining room to play structure area: The pull side door maneuvering clear width = 13 1/2" measured to a combo trashcan/tray return unit (vs. 18" minimum required).

Trash can will be relocated to provide compliant maneuvering clearance.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 11 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page83 of 158
Remedy

1646

Interior

A total of 13 tables with 43 seating positions are provided in the play structure area. 3 accessible seating positions are required. 3 designated accessible tables are provided (although the ISAs are missing from all of them). 2 of the 3 do not provide sufficient clear floor space. One of the tables does not provide the required knee space width (29 1/2" measured between table supports vs. 30" minimum required). A trashcan obstructs the required clear floor space depth at the other. The trashcan creates an alcove condition at the table taht is > 15" deep. In these type of conditions a 60" minimum deep clear floor space is required. The depth measured from the table edge to the trashcan is 25 1/4". Adding the 19" deep knee space to this results in an overall clear depth of 44 1/4"; 15 3/4" shy of that required.

This seating area will be modified to have at least 3 accessible seating positions with dimensions that comply with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ Standards.

Interior The tea dispenser has been fixed in place on top of the beverage counter. Its controls are located in the Relocate tea dispenser to compliant location. corner such that neither a compliant forward or side reach is possible (per ADAAG Fig. A3(a)).

Men's Toil Insulation is provided for the lavatory drain and supply lines, but sharp hose clamp bands are exposed. Cover the shart hose clamp bands.

Women's The toilet stall door is not self‐closing.

Install self‐closing hardware.

Women's The floor in in the center of the room slopes up to 4.1% to drain. Toilet Room

BKC will provide photographic evidence demonstrating that this element is in compliance with the DOJ Standards and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. In the absence of such evidence, a plate identical, or functionally equivalent, to the plate shown in photos 1‐3 attached hereto will be installed over this drain.

1682

Exterior Trash receptacle reduces the depth of the level landing at the top of the curb ramp to 34.5" from the required depth of 48".

Relocate trash can.

Exterior There are signs at each driveway entrance, but the signs display different information for reclaiming vehicles.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior Emergency exit door has ISA signage. This door is not an accessible means of egress in that it leads to an Remove ISA sign. exterior landing with not curb ramp.

Exterior The "van accessible" signage is mounted at the incorrect stall.

Relocate "van accessible" signage.

Exterior At the northwest door, the waste receptacle at the interior reduces the required 12" strike side clearance Relocate trash can. to 8.5".

Interior Play area has seating for 38 occupants, 1 of which is designated accessible. 2 are required.

Provide one additional accessible seating position that complies with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ Standards.

Men's Toilet

The toilet has a 10# operating force. The urinal has a 9# operating force. The soap dispenser has a 10# operating force.

All but soap dispenser will be remedied

Women's Toilet has operating force of 11#. Paper towel dispenser has an operating force of 9#. Soap dispenser has All but soap dispenser will be remedied Toilet an operating force of 13#.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 12 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page84 of 158
Remedy

1682

Women's No insulation on the drain pipe at the accessible lavatory.

Cover drain line.

1897

Exterior The designated van accessible parking space access aisle is 93 3/4" wide measured from the curb face to Restripe to compliant dimensions. the centerline of the striping (vs. 96" minimum required).

Exterior East entrances: ISAs are provided on the (4) entrance doors, but they are turned to the interior of the store, and are not recognizable as ISAs from outside the store.

Provide appropriate signage.

Exterior

Pavement markings and striping for the designated van accessible parking space and access aisle are in poor condition. It is difficult to tell where the parking space and access aisle begin and end. The surface of the pavement within the access aisle is also deteriorating. Loose gravel and fines create a surface that is not stable or slip resistant.

Space will be restriped, but not repaved

Exterior No tow‐away warning sign is provided at the entrance to the property from the alleyway south of the store. (A tow‐away warning sign obscurred by a tree appears to serve the adjacent property.)

Provide required tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior

The tow‐away warning sign at the N. Gaffey Street driveway entrance lacks a reclaiming address. It is also Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s). turned almost perpendicular to the driveway entrance, essentially eliminating its message from view to those entering the property from the south.

Exterior Directional signage located at the northeast corner of the property (intersection of Gaffey and Santa Cruz) Provide appropriate signage. points toward a route containing steps.

Exterior The tow‐away warning sign at the W. Santa Cruz Street driveway entrance lacks a reclaiming address.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Women's The floor to the left of the lavatory slopes 3.1% ‐ 4.0% to drain, with one short section sloping as much as A plate identical, or functionally equivalent, to the plate

Toilet 7.8%.

shown in photos 1‐3 attached hereto will be installed

Room

over this drain.

Women's The floor to the right of the lavatory slopes 5.5% ‐ 6.8% to drain, right around the drain. Toilet Room

A plate identical, or functionally equivalent, to the plate shown in photos 1‐3 attached hereto will be installed over this drain.

Women's The toilet flush mechanism is difficult to operate. A 7# force was required once it did work. Toilet

Adjust or replace flush mechanism to achieve compliant force.

Women's An sharp no‐hub coupling band on the lavatory drain line is exposed.

Cover sharp areas under lavatory.

1932

Exterior Two sections of sidewalk off the southwest corner of the exterior dining area have cross slopes as high as Replace portion of pavement with excessive cross slope. 4.1% (vs. 2% maximum allowed).

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 13 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page85 of 158
Remedy

1932

Exterior

A section of sidewalk off the northwest side of the store (west side of the exterior dining area) has cross slopes as high as 4.1% (vs. 2% maximum allowed). In addition, there is a vertical drop‐off as high as 6 1/2" to the ground alongside it (vs. 4" maximum allowed without edge protection). At the southern end of this section of walkway there is a 1" vertical rise. The concrete has been ground down a bit, but the vertical offset is still too high (3/8" vs. 1/4" maximum allowed), and the ground‐down section slopes 7.1% (vs. 5% maximum allowed).

Replace sections of sidewalk with excessive slope or cross slope and ensure proper edge protection.

Exterior Northwest driveway entrance: The tow‐away warning sign does not provide a reclaiming address, and the Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s). reclaiming phone number lacks an area code.

Exterior

Southwest entrance onto BK property: The tow‐away warning sign does not provide a reclaiming address, Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s). and the reclaiming phone number lacks an area code. Additionally, the sign is positioned in an odd fashion; perpendicular to drive.

Interior The tea dispenser has been fixed in place on top of the beverage counter. Its controls are located in the Relocate tea dispenser to compliant location. corner such that neither a compliant forward or side reach is possible (per ADAAG Fig. A3(a)).

Men's Toilet

The toilet stall door swings across the required water closet clear floor space. The door is located 55 7/8" Reverse the swing of the door. from the rear wall; the floor‐mounted water closet requires a minimum clear floor space depth of 59".

Men's Toil The floor drain cover is not fixed in place.

Fix floor drain.

Men's Toil Lavatory drain and supply lines are wrapped, but in a very poor fashion.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Men's Toil The clearance beneath the rear grab bar to the toilet flush mechanism is 1" (vs. 1 1/2" minimum required). Raise grab bars one inch.

Men's Toilet

The toilet paper dispenser is mounted too low. Its dispensing point is located 16 1/4” AFF (vs. 19” minimum AFF required).

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Men's Toilet Room

The toilet seat cover dispenser is mounted 43 1/2" AFF to where the seat covers are dispensed (vs. 40" Relocate toilet seat cover dispenser to compliant AFF maximum allowed). Mounted 1 7/8" above it, the toilet seat cover dispenser also obstructs access to location. the rear grab bar (12" minimum clearance above the grab bar required).

Women's Toilet Room

The toilet stall door swings across the required water closet clear floor space. The door is located 56 1/8" from the rear wall; the floor‐mounted water closet requires a minimum clear floor space depth of 59".

Reverse the swing of the door. Alternatively, the door frame can be moved to the corner diagonally across from the water closet to gain approximately 3 of the required 4 1/2 inches of depth.

Women's The toilet paper dispenser is mounted too low. Its dispensing point is located 16 1/8” AFF (vs. 19”

Toilet

minimum AFF required).

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Women's Lavatory drain and supply lines are wrapped, but in a very poor fashion.

Cover drain and supply lines.

1937

Exterior The tow‐away warning sign at the Lyons Avenue driveway entrance does not provide a reclaiming address. Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Women's Hot supply line not covered; overall condition under lavatory.

Cover hot water supply lines and others as necessary.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 14 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page86 of 158
Remedy

1937

Women's Toilet Room

The inswinging stall door swings across the required clear floor space of the water closet. Depth from back of stall to edge of door when opened 90° = 46" (vs. 59" minimum for stall with a floor‐mounted water closet). The stall door could swing out and comply with the ADA standards, but not the CBC (50" clear depth on what is now the push side).

Reverse the swing of the door to the accessible stall.

2022

Exterior Both Unauthorized Vehicle signs do not provide information for reclaiming vehicles.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior Waste receptacle reduces width of accessible route at the top of the north side flare is 32".

Relocate trash can.

Exterior Both accessible parking stalls do not have the signage stating "Minimum Fine $250"

Provide compliant signage.

Men's Toil Soap dispenser operating force is 12#. Urinal operating force is 8#. Toilet operating force is 8#.

All but soap dispenser will be remedied

Men's Toil Lavatory controls require pinching of the fingers and twisting of the wrist.

Replace lavatory controls.

Women's Soap dispenser operating force is 15#. Toilet operating force is 12#.

All but soap dispenser will be remedied

Women's Lavatory controls require pinching of the fingers and twisting of the wrist.

Replace lavatory controls.

2119

Exterior

A walkway on the south end of the store provides access to the public sidewalk along East Willow Street. A surface‐applied detectable warning mat on the north side of the drive‐thru is warped and does not lie flat. Ripples are as high as 1", creating a barrier to passage as well as a tripping hazard.

Detectable warning mat will be repaired or replaced to eliminate changes in level

Exterior Door to exterior dining/play structure: A concrete trashcan obstructs the required pull side door maneuvering clear area. Existing width = 11 1/2" measured to the trashcan vs. 24" minimum required.

Trash can will be relocated to provide compliant maneuvering clearance.

Exterior One designated accessible parking space is provided. Pavement markings are worn. "No Parking" is in poor condition; the "No" is worn away.

Repaint to ensure markings are visible.

Exterior

One designated accessible parking space is provided. Markings exist for a second space, but its access aisle is not connected to an accessible route to the store. It appears as though it has been abandoned, but the pavement markings are visible and misleading.

The pavement markings will be blacked out.

Men's Toil Door latching slide‐bolt hardware is mounted on the door at 56 3/4" AFF (vs. 48" AFF maximum allowed). Lower door hardware to compliant height.

Men's Toilet

The door latching slide‐bolt hardware is misaligned. As such it requires 2 hands to operate. The small handle requires pinching to operate.

The door hardware will be lowered to compliant height.

Men's Toil The clearance below the side grab bar to the toilet paper dispenser is 7/8" (vs. 1 1/2" minimum required). Raise grab bars one inch.

Men's Toilet Room

The toilet paper dispenser is mounted so that its dispensing point is located 16 3/4” AFF (vs. 19” minimum Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location. AFF required), and 43 1/2" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge of the dispenser (vs. 36" maximum required).

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 15 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page87 of 158
Remedy

2119

Women's The toilet paper dispenser is mounted so that its dispensing point is located 17 1/8” AFF (vs. 19” minimum Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Toilet

AFF required), and 46" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge of the dispenser (vs. 36"

Room maximum required).

Women's Door latching slide‐bolt hardware is mounted on the door at 52" AFF (vs. 48" AFF maximum allowed). The The door hardware will be lowered to compliant

Toilet small handle may require pinching to operate.

location.

Women's The clearance below the side grab bar to the toilet paper dispenser is 1/2" (vs. 1 1/2" minimum required). Raise grab bars one inch.

2149

Exterior A roughly 15 sq. ft. section of pavement within the left access aisle slopes up to 5.9%.

Repave to achieve compliant slope.

Exterior

West entrance (to play structure area): No ISA signage is provided on the door, and there is no signage inside to advise patrons exiting the store that this door is not accessible. Note: The door is locked to the outside.

Provide appropriate signage.

Exterior Tow‐away warning signs (2) do not provide a reclaiming address.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Interior East entrance: Floor mat corners are badly curled, rising as much as 2 3/4" above the floor.

Replace floormat.

Interior Play structure area matting is raised 2 1/2" above the floor. Ramped edging slopes up to 29.2%. The matting obstructs access to the entrance to the play structure, and to a seating area.

This issue will be remedied.

Interior Plywood and floor mats have been laid down to cover what appears to be construction/repair work being Ensure compliant accessible route to restrooms. done to and/or below the floor along the route to the public toilet rooms.

Men's Toilet Room

Toilet room door: push side latch approach door maneuvering area clear depth = 43 3/4" to opposing partition wall vs. 48" minimum required. (Note: a power‐assist opening device has been added to the door, but it was not operational at the time of the survey.)

Ensure power‐assist door is operational.

Men's Toilet

The toilet paper dispenser is mounted 42 1/2" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location. of the dispenser (vs. 36" maximum allowed).

Women's Toilet room door: push side latch approach door maneuvering area clear depth = 43 1/2" to opposing

Toilet

partition wall vs. 48" minimum required. (Note: a power‐assist opening device has been added to the

Room door, but it was not operational at the time of the survey.)

Ensure power‐assist door is operational.

2268

Exterior The accessible route crosswalk markings are faded and should be replaced.

Repaint where faded.

Exterior

There are 58 stalls provided in the parking lot which would require 3 of the stalls to be accessible. Only 2 Provide one additional accessible parking space and accessible stalls are provided. The stall markings are barely visible and should be replaced. Because of ensure all markings are visible. the poor markings it is difficult to define the accessible stalls.

Men's Toil 12# for soap dispenser, 9# for urinal flush

All but soap dispenser will be remedied

Men's Toilet

Toilet paper dispenser is located above the grab bar at 37" above the floor.

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to a compliant location below the grab bar.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 16 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page88 of 158
Remedy

2268

Women's The toilet paper dispenser dispensing point can be 34" or 40.5" from the rear wall depending how the roll Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Toilet

is installed.

Women's Clearance in front of the toilet to the opposite wall is 45". Toilet

Relocate partition or install shorter toilet as necessary to achieve compliant clearance.

Women's Sanitizer requires 12# force to operate.

Adjust controls to achieve compliant force.

Women's The handle on the baby changing station is higher than 40" above the floor. Toilet

Lower baby changing station so that handle is max 40" AFF.

2279

Exterior The tow‐away warning sign at the Capitol Avenue driveway entrance lacks reclaiming address and an area Provide required signage and information. code for the reclaiming phone number.

Exterior

This store is located within a large shopping center; there are multiple site entry points. The tow‐away warning sign at the McKee Rd. driveway entrance does not provide a required reclaiming address. (No other tow‐away signs are provided at the other possible entry points into the Burger King parking lots.)

Provide required signage and information.

Interior

Northwest entrance: A combo tray return/trashcan unit obstructs the required push side front approach door maneuvering clear area. The clear width beyond the strike side of the door to the unit = 5 1/4" vs. 12" minimum required. The latch is operational. (Note: There is room to move it over out of the required clear area.)

Relocate trash can out of maneuvering clearance.

Interior Edges of the floor mat in front of the beverage machine are rippled and raised as much as 7/8" above the Replace floormat. floor.

2319

Exterior Tow‐away warning signs (3) do not provide a reclaiming address.

Provide required signage and information.

Exterior A new inline curb ramp has been installed in the sidewalk in front of the designated accessible parking spaces. The ramped section on the right slopes as much as 11.4% (vs. 8.33% maximum allowed).

This store will be remodeled within one year and this issue will be remedied during that process.

Exterior

Northeast entrance: An ISA sign is not provided. The exterior door hardware has been removed, but at the time of the survey the deadbolt was extended to prevent the door from closing. The door should have exterior door hardware and an ISA, or directional signage with an ISA that points toward the west entrance.

Provide exterior door hardware and an ISA, or directional signage with an ISA that points toward the west entrance.

Women's The toilet paper dispenser is mounted so that its dispensing point is located 16 3/8” AFF (vs. 19” minimum Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location. Toilet AFF required), and 41" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge of the dispenser (vs. 36" Room maximum required).

2359

Exterior Northwest entrance: The push side door maneuvering clear area width = 10 1/4" measured to the adjacent booth vs. 12" minimum required. The door hardware/latch is operational.

The latch on this door will be disengaged during business hours.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 17 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page89 of 158
Remedy

2359

Exterior

The designated van accessible parking access aisle is 92" wide measured to the centerline of the striping (vs. 96" minimum required).

BKC will provide photographic evidence demonstrating that this element is in compliance with the DOJ Standards and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, or, in the absence of such evidence, this issue will be remedied.

Exterior

A ramp off the northwest corner of the store provides access to the public sidewalk along Roadside Dr. The bottom landing of the ramp has cross as high as 5.6%. These cross slopes are highest where the walkway adjoins the public sidewalk.

BKC will provide photographic evidence demonstrating that this element is in compliance with the DOJ Standards and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, or, in the absence of such evidence, this issue will be remedied.

Exterior No tow‐away warning sign is provided at the southwest entrance to the property from the neighboring strip mall (and no sign is posted at the Roadside Dr. driveway entrance to the adjacent property).

Provide missing tow‐away sign and provide required information in existing tow‐away sign(s).

Interior West (main) entrance: The edges of the loose floor mat are rippled and raised up to 3/4" above the floor. Replace floormat to eliminate noncompliant changes in level.

Interior

Drink lids are provided in fixed dispensers on the beverage counter. Access to large lids requires one to reach beyond allowable reach ranges. One of the two dispensers is located in a corner such that neither a compliant forward or side reach is possible (per ADAAG Fig. A3(a)). The large lids are also located too high 55 1/2" ‐ 59" AFF (vs. 50 1/2" AFF maximum allowed based on a side reach depth over an obstruction of 16"). Large lids provided in the other dispenser are also located beyond compliant reach range. Accessing them requires a 52 1/2" ‐ 54" high x 19" high side reach over an obstruction (vs. a maximum allowed height of 49" AFF for a reach of that depth).

The dispensers will be relocated to accessible locations.

Interior

A total of 22 tables with 74 seating positions are provided in the restaurant. 4 accessible seating positions are required. 5 designated accessible tables/seating positions are provided (two are missing ISAs), but none of them provide compliant knee space. Angled metal tabletop supports under the tables reduce the clear knee height to between 25 1/2" and 26" AFF (vs. 27" minimum AFF required). Table tops are only 24" deep, which can create problems when the opposing seating is fixed as it is here. If a wheelchair user utilizes the 19" deep clear knee space required, it leaves very little space for a companion sitting in the fixed seat.

This seating area will be modified to have at least 4 accessible seating positions with dimensions that comply with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ Standards.

Women's The toilet paper dispenser is mounted so that its dispensing point is located 15 3/8” AFF (vs. 19” minimum Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location. Toilet AFF required), and 39" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge of the dispenser (vs. 36" Room maximum required).

2399

Exterior

A diagonal designated accessible parking space is located in the parking lot on the north side of the store. Measured on the square for the full required width (60") of the access aisle, the space is 13'‐4" long. The CBC requires parking spaces and their access aisles to be a minimum of 18' long, and both standards require access aisles to be fully engaged with the full length of the accessible parking spaces they serve.

Restripe to create compliant parking spaces and access aisles.

Interior

Fixed furniture reduces the clear with of the aisle into the children's dining area to 23 1/4" (vs. 44" minimum if serving two sides; 36" minimum if serving one side; 32" minimum at a point). When people sit on the benches, the clear width is reduced even further.

Purple bench will be removed to achieve compliant accessible route.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 18 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page90 of 158
Remedy

2399

Men's Toil The hot water supply line is not covered.

Cover hot water supply line.

2473

Exterior

The pedestrian route from the public sidewalk along W. Avenue I includes a ramp. Compliant handrails are provided, except that they do not extend beyond the bottom of the ramp run, and they extend < 12" beyond the top of the ramp run.

Add handrail extensions.

Exterior

Three designated accessible parking spaces are provided. The access aisle for the designated van accessible parking space is 89 1/2" wide measured from centerline‐to‐centerline of striping (vs. 96" minimum wide required).

Restripe to compliant dimensions.

Exterior No tow‐away warning sign is provided at the alleyway entrance to the property (south of the store).

Provide required tow‐away sign.

Men's Toilet Room

The toilet paper dispenser is mounted so that its dispensing point is located 16 3/4” AFF (vs. 19” minimum Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location. AFF required), and it is mounted 49" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge of the dispenser (vs. 36" maximum required).

Men's Toil The clearance below the side grab bar to the toilet paper dispenser is 3/4" (vs. 1 1/2" minimum required). Raise grab bars one inch.

Women's The clearance below the side grab bar to the toilet paper dispenser is 3/4" (vs. 1 1/2" minimum required). Raise grab bars one inch.

Women's The toilet paper dispenser is mounted so that its dispensing point is located 17 5/8” AFF (vs. 19” minimum Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Toilet

AFF required), and it is mounted 39 1/2" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge of the

Room dispenser (vs. 36" maximum required).

2474

Interior In the play area, 25 seats are provided, 1 of which is designated accessible. 2 should be provided.

An accessible seating position that complies with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ Standards has been added

Men's Toilet

Men's room toilet 9# operating force, urinal 10# operating force, soap dispenser 12# operating force, paper towel dispenser 7# operating force.

All but soap dispenser will be remedied

Men's Toil Instant water heater cuts into clear floor space at lavatory.

Reconfigure to provide compliant clear floor space.

Women's Automatic dryer 9# operating force, stall door 9# operating force, soap dispenser 7# operating force.

All but soap dispenser will be remedied

Women's Lavatory is missing insulation

Cover drain line and supply lines.

Women's Lavatory knee clearance is obstructed by overflow drain pipe.

Reconfigure to provide compliant clear floor space.

Women's Floor slope to drain is 4.1% Toilet Room

A plate identical, or functionally equivalent, to the plate shown in photos 1‐3 attached hereto will be installed over this drain.

2495

Exterior The unauthorized parking signage has a phone number but not a name listed.

This store will be remodeled within the next year and will be subject to successor remodel requirement.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 19 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page91 of 158
Remedy

2495

Exterior Signage arrow needs to be replaced on signage at east stair.

This store will be remodeled within the next year and will be subject to successor remodel requirement.

Unisex #1 Hook behind the door is too high.

This store will be remodeled within the next year and will be subject to successor remodel requirement.

Unisex #1 Clearance under side grab bar to top of toilet paper dispenser is 1".

This store will be remodeled within the next year and will be subject to successor remodel requirement.

Unisex #1 Door hardware is a compliant type, but operated by a key which requires pinching the fingers and twisting This store will be remodeled within the next year and

of the wrist.

will be subject to successor remodel requirement.

Unisex #1 Excessive floor slopes at drain.

This store will be remodeled within the next year and will be subject to successor remodel requirement.

Unisex #2 Door hardware is a compliant type, but operated by a key which requires pinching the fingers and twisting This store will be remodeled within the next year and

of the wrist.

will be subject to successor remodel requirement.

Unisex #2 Excessive floor slopes at drain.

This store will be remodeled within the next year and will be subject to successor remodel requirement.

Unisex #2 Hook behind the door is too high.

This store will be remodeled within the next year and will be subject to successor remodel requirement.

2521

Exterior The tow‐away warning sign at the Balsam Street driveway entrance does not provide a reclaiming address Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s). or an area code for reclaiming phone number.

Exterior East entrance: an ISA is provided on the double doors, but it is blue‐on‐clear. It provides no contrast, which makes it almost imperceptible, especially from a distance.

Provide appropriate signage.

Exterior The tow‐away warning sign at the N. China Lake Blvd. driveway entrance does not provide a reclaiming address or an area code for reclaiming phone number.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior An L‐shaped ramp provides access from the public sidewalk along N. China Lake Blvd. to the store. One of Add handrail extension. the handrails does not extend 12" beyond the top of the ramp run.

Exterior North entrance: ISAs are provided on the double doors, but they are blue‐on‐clear. They provide no contrast, which makes them almost imperceptible, especially from a distance.

Provide appropriate signage.

Men's Toil The accessible toilet stall door is not self‐closing.

Install self‐closing hardware.

Men's Toilet Room

The toilet paper dispenser is mounted < 19” AFF to the centerline of the roll of paper, as required. Measured at 17 1/2" AFF at the time of the survey, with this type of dispenser, the effective height of the dispenser is lowered as the paper is diminished and the roll of paper drops. The dispenser is also located too far from the rear wall (39" measured from the rear wall to the far end of the roll vs. 36" maximum allowed).

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Women's The accessible toilet stall door is not self‐closing.

Install self‐closing hardware.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 20 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page92 of 158
Remedy

2521

Women's Toilet Room

The toilet paper dispenser is mounted < 19” AFF to the centerline of the roll of paper, as required. Measured at 18" AFF at the time of the survey, with this type of dispenser, the effective height of the dispenser is lowered as the paper is diminished and the roll of paper drops. The dispenser is also located too far from the rear wall (38 1/2" measured from the rear wall to the far end of the roll vs. 36" maximum allowed).

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

2555

Exterior West driveway entrance from Murray Avenue: No tow‐away warning sign is provided here, or at any of Provide required tow‐away sign. the other possible approaches to the parking lot from this driveway entrance.

Exterior

West (main) entrance: One leaf of the door is equipped with a power‐assist device. There is no push‐ plate activator inside the store; one pushes on the door to activate the device. There is a single push‐ plate activator outside; there is no low push‐plate.

Install activator inside store.

Exterior

West (main) entrance: One leaf of the door is equipped with a power‐assist device. There is no push‐pad Install activator inside the store. activator inside the store; one pushes on the door to activate the device. The force required to push the door (before it begins opening) is 10# (vs. 5# maximum required).

Exterior There are a total of 58 parking spaces onsite; 2 of which are designated as accessible (vs.3 minimum accessible parking spaces required).

Provide three compliant accessible spaces one of which is van accessible.

Exterior

North driveway entrance from Leavesley Road: The tow‐away warning sign does not provide a reclaiming Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s). address, and the reclaiming phone number lacks an area code. Additionally, the sign is positioned in an odd fashion; perpendicular to drive.

Exterior West (main) entrance: The exterior pavement within the required exterior door landing area slopes up to Signage to accessible route will be provided. 6.3% (vs. 2% maximum allowed). One leaf of the door is equipped with a power‐assist device.

Interior The "Take a JobApp" dispenser is mounted 50" AFF in a corner above a 44 3/8" high counter. Because it is Move job applications to accessible location. located in a corner, the required clear floor space is not provided.

Men's Toilet

The floor in front of the urinals slopes up to 5.0% to drain (vs. 2% maximum allowed).

Redo floor around drain to ensure compliant slope and cross slope.

Men's Toilet

The toilet paper dispenser is mounted too low. Its dispensing point is located 16 1/8” AFF (vs. 19” minimum AFF required).

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Men's Toil The lavatory drain line is not covered at all; the hot water supply line is not completely covered.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Men's Toil The floor drain cover is not fixed in place.

Fix floor drain.

Women's The floor in the middle of the toilet room slopes up to 3.8% to drain (vs. 2% maximum allowed). Toilet

Redo floor around drain to ensure compliant slope and cross slope.

2563

Exterior Tow‐away warning signs (2) do not provide the required reclaiming information. Only one provides a phone number, and neither provides a reclaiming address.

Provide required information and/or signage.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 21 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page93 of 158
Remedy

2563

Men's Toil Toilet room door: The thumb‐turn lock requires tight pinching and twisting of the wrist to operate.

Replace door hardware with compliant hardware.

Men's Toilet

The double roll toilet paper dispenser is mounted 45" from the water closet back wall measured to the far Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location. edge of the dispenser (vs. 36" maximum required).

Men's Toil Noncompliant lavatory faucet control.

Replace faucet control with lever handle hardware.

Men's Toilet

The paper towel dispenser is mounted 44" AFF to its pull‐down lever (vs. 40" AFF maximum allowed per Lower paper towel dispenser to 40" AFF. the CBC).

Men's Toil The floor drain cover is not fixed in place, creating a potential hazard.

Fix floor drain.

Women's The double roll toilet paper dispenser is mounted 39 3/4" from the water closet back wall measured to

Toilet

the far edge of the dispenser (vs. 36" maximum required).

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

2671

Exterior The tow‐away warning sign at the Pacheco Blvd. driveway entrance does not provide the required reclaiming information.

Provide required information and/or signage.

Exterior

North entrance: An ISA sign is not provided; a directional sign displaying an ISA instructs patrons to use the west (main) entrance. The exterior door hardware has been removed, but at the time of the survey the door was not locked to the outside. In fact the door is on a pivot hinge which allows it to swing in and out of the store. There are no apparent reasons why this door cannot be considered accessible.

Install ISA signage and ensure that door remains accessible.

Exterior

A total of 11 tables with 40 seating positions are provided in the exterior dining area. 2 accessible seating positions are required. Fixed seats have been removed from two tables, presumably for accessibility. A third table come closest to being accessible, but each of the three have an issue or two. (photos 30475‐ 30485) The knee space under the table when approached from the open wide side is 10 1/2" deep (vs. 19" minimum required). The required depth is available if one utilizes the end, but the table is only 24" wide. (photos 30495‐30505) This table has the same issues as the first. (photos 30486‐30494) This table is compliant; should have ISA indicating this.

Add ISA sign to table in photos 30486‐94.

Exterior

The Burger King parking lot can be accessed from the adjacent Mountain Mike's Pizza parking lot. The tow‐away warning sign at the driveway entrance to Mountain Mike's lot does not provide a reclaiming address or an area code for the reclaiming phone number. There are no other tow‐away warning signs at the entry driveways from Mountain Mike's to Burger King.

Provide required information and/or signage.

Exterior "NO PARKING" is not painted in the designated accessible parking space access aisle, and the access aisle Paint "no parking" in access aisle. is not outlined in blue, as required.

Interior A portable game(?) reduces the clear length of the accessible order pick‐up counter from 38 1/2" down to Ensure accessible counter is unobstructed. 27" (vs. 36" minimum required).

Men's Toil The gap between the rear grab bar and the wall is 2 3/4" vs. 1 1/2" required.

Reposition grab bars to provide compliant gap.

Men's Toil The lavatory hot water supply line is not fully covered to prevent contact.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Women's The accessible toilet stall door is not self‐closing.

Install self‐closing hardware.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 22 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page94 of 158
Remedy

2671

Women's The drain and hot water supply lines under the lavatories are not fully covered to prevent contact.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Women's The floor within the accessible toilet stall slopes up to 6.0% to drain (vs. 2% maximum allowed). Toilet Room

A plate identical, or functionally equivalent, to the plate shown in photos 1‐3 attached hereto will be installed over this drain.

Women's Toilet room door: A stored high chair obstructs the required push side hinge approach door maneuvering Relocate stored high chair. Toilet clear area.

Women's The gap between the rear grab bar and the wall is 2 5/8" vs. 1 1/2" required.

Reposition grab bar to provide compliant gap.

Women's The door latching slide‐bolt hardware is misaligned. As such it requires pinching to operate.

Repair slide‐bolt hardware.

2795

Exterior

The sidewalk along the northeast corner of the store provides access to the delineated accessible route to Strategic will notify city of this issue. the public sidewalk along Hopyard Road. A section of the sidewalk has cross slopes as high as 4.5% (vs. 2% maximum allowed).

Exterior Northwest entrance: The closer arm prevents the door from opening 90° (4 1/2" short of 90° over the width of the door).

Adjust closer so that a full 90‐degree opening is possible.

Exterior

The sidewalk along the northeast corner of the store provides access to the delineated accessible route to Strategic will notify city of this issue. the public sidewalk along Hopyard Road. A section of the sidewalk is uplifted creating a vertical offset as high as 1" (vs. 1/4" maximum allowed; 1/2" maximum if beveled at a 1:2 maximum slope).

Exterior

A curb ramp located off the northeast corner of the store provides access to the delineated accessible Widen curb ramp. route to the public sidewalk along Hopyard Road. The clear width between side flares is 34" (vs. 36" min. per ADA, 48" min. per CBC).

Exterior There is a 1" high vertical offset within the delineated accessible route where the asphalt pavement meets the public sidewalk.

Provide properly beveled vertical offset.

Exterior A roughly 30 sq. ft. section of asphalt pavement at the head of the access aisle slopes between 3.5% ‐ 6.2%.

Replace section of pavement with excessive slope.

Exterior

Tow‐away warning signs are not consistently provided at the driveway entrances into the shopping center, of which this store is a part. They are provided at each end of the parking lane on the north side of the store where the (Burger King's) designated accessible parking spaces are located. The tow‐away warning signs do not provide a reclaiming address, and the reclaiming phone number lacks an area code.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior Northeast entrance: The clear‐on‐blue ISA provides little contrast, and is difficult to make out, especially Provide appropriate signage. from a distance.

Interior

Northeast entrance: A large advertising placard placed in front of the door reduces the push side hinge approach door maneuvering clear depth to 41" (vs. 42" minimum required per ADA; 44" minimum per CBC).

Relocate advertising placard and ensure maneuvering clearance remains unobstructed.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 23 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page95 of 158
Remedy

2795

Interior

A total of 20 tables with 71 seating positions are provided in the restaurant. 4 accessible seating positions are required. 2 accessible seating positions are provided. 2 round tables are marked with ISAs, but the table bases obstruct the required knee/toe space beneath them. 4 booths provide the required knee space width, but table support brackets reduce the clear height to less than the minimum required height of 27".

This seating area will be modified to have at least 4 accessible seating positions with dimensions that comply with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ Standards.

Men's Toil The water closet is located 19"‐19 3/4" from the side wall measured to the center of the fixture.

Relocate water closet to compliant location.

Men's Toilet

The toilet paper dispenser is mounted too low. Its dispensing point is located 16 3/4” AFF (vs. 19” minimum AFF required).

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Men's Toilet

The floor in front of the lavatory and urinal slopes up to 3.7% to drain (vs. 2% maximum allowed).

Redo floor around drain to ensure compliant slope and cross slope.

Women's Knob‐style door hardware that also has a thumb‐turn lock requires tight grasping, pinching, and/or Toilet twisting of the wrist to operate.

Replace door hardware with compliant hardware.

Women's The floor in the middle of the toilet room slopes up to 3.6% to drain (vs. 2% maximum allowed). Toilet

Redo floor around drain to ensure compliant slope and cross slope.

Women's The toilet paper dispenser is mounted too low. Its dispensing point is located 16” AFF (vs. 19” minimum Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location. Toilet AFF required).

2891

Exterior The emergency exit door at the south is not an accessible means of egress because there is only a 48" depth of clearance at the swing side of the door. Recommend removing access signage.

Remove access signage.

Exterior

South single door at main entrance: the door has an interior strike side clearance of 4.25" instead of the required 12" because the door has a closer and a latch. Recommend removing access signage on this door because the two adjacent doors at the entry are compliant.

Remove access signage from this door.

Exterior

There are 3 tow away signs on the property: one at each driveway and one on a low fence as you enter the driveway. The reclaimed vehicle information at the south driveway displays different phone number than the other two signs.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Women's Knee clearance obstructed by overflow piping.

Reconfigure to achieve compliant knee clearance.

Women's Soap dispenser push pad is too high at 44"

Lower soap dispener to max 40" AFF.

2893

Exterior

Compliant tow‐away warning signage is not provided at the driveway entrance from Central Avenue (or at Provide required tow‐away sign. any of the specific entrances to the Burger King parking area). Signage at the designated accessible parking spaces warn of towing, but they do not comply with the standards.

Exterior

A new designated accesible route has been provided from the property to the public sidewalk along and the bus stop on Central Avenue. The route crosses the drive‐through lane, sections of which are in a state of disrepair with potholes that create vertical offstes up to 7/8" in height.

Repave to repair potholes.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 24 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page96 of 158
Remedy

2893

Exterior

A new designated accesible route has been provided from the property to the public sidewalk along and the bus stop on Central Avenue. Passing through a landscape berm, it is not readily apparent, especially from distance, to someone traveling along the public sidewalk. No signage is provided identifying this accessible route.

Provide appropriate signage.

Exterior

Compliant tow‐away warning signage is not provided at the driveway entrance from San Bernardino Street. Signage at the designated accessible parking spaces warn of towing, but they do not comply with the standards.

Provide required tow‐away sign(s).

Men's Toilet

The thumb turn locking mechanism on the door knob requires tight grasping, pinching, and/or twisting of Replace door hardware with compliant hardware. the wrist to operate.

Men's Toilet Room

The toilet paper dispenser is mounted 47 1/2" AFF measured to the bottom dispensing point. The CBC requires that it be mounted no higher than 40" AFF, but since mounting it at that height would conflict with and/or obstruct the side grab bar, the dispenser must be mounted below the grab bar.

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Women's The toilet paper dispenser is mounted 46" AFF measured to the bottom dispensing point. The CBC

Toilet

requires that it be mounted no higher than 40" AFF, but since mounting it at that height would conflict

Room with and/or obstruct the side grab bar, the dispenser must be mounted below the grab bar.

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

2901

Exterior Designated accessible parking spaces are provided in the lot on the north side of the store. The access Restripe to compliant dimensions. aisle is 90 3/4" wide measured from centerline‐to‐centerline of striping (vs. 96" minimum wide required).

Exterior

2 tow‐away warning signs are provided at the 15th Street W. driveway entrance. One does not provide a Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s). reclaiiming address or phone number, the other does not provide an area code for reclaiming phone number.

Exterior

Tow‐away warning signs are provided at other driveway entrances (along 15th St, W and Youngblood Pl.) Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s). to the shopping center of which this store is a part. Of the three surveyed, none provide a reclaiiming address or phone number.

Exterior A pedestrian route is provided from the northeast corner of the store to the public sidewalk along 15th Street W. The route crosses a gutter that slopes up to 9.9% (vs. 5% maximum allowed).

Reconfigure gutter to achieve compliant slope.

Men's Toilet Room

Insulation is provided for the lavatory drain and supply lines, but it is improperly installed. A portion of the Cover hot water supply and drain lines, as well as the drain line is not completely covered, the hot supply line is not covered, and both the hot and cold side sharp angle stops. angle stops are exposed.

2976

Exterior The striping at the DAPS is wearing and difficult to read.

Replace faded striping.

Exterior Unauthorized Parking Signage does not have the name of the contact for reclaiming vehicles but it does Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s). have the phone number.

Men's Toil Urinal 10#, toilet 10#, soap dispenser 10#

All but soap dispenser will be remedied

Men's Toil Floor drain cover is recessed more than 1/4" from the floor level.

Raise drain cover.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 25 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page97 of 158
Remedy

2976

Women's Drain pipe insulation is not fully covered.

Cover drain pipe.

Women's The privacy latch on the stall door is the sliding type and does not align with the slide lock receiver.

Replace latch with compliant working hardware.

Women's Drain is recessed more than 1/4" from the floor level.

Raise drain cover.

Women's Soap dispenser force to operate is 10#, toilet 9#.

All but soap dispenser will be remedied

Women's Soap dispenser encroaches into lavatory clear floor space.

Relocate soap dispenser closer to the lavatory.

3034

Women's The soap dispenser operating height is 47" above the floor.

Lower soap dispener to max 40" AFF.

Women's Insulation does not cover the entire drain pipe.

Cover drain pipe.

3147

Exterior Off the northeast corner of the store there is a delineated route to the adjacent shopping center that crosses drive‐thru lane. A pothole in the asphalt pavement within the delineated route is 1 3/4" deep.

Repave or fill pothole.

Exterior The Tow‐away warning sign at the driveway entrance directly southeast of the store does not provide a Provide required signage and information. reclaiming address.

Exterior East entrance: The ISA is installed on the inside face of the glass door. The glare is so bad that it is very Provide appropriate signage. difficult to see, especially from a distance.

Exterior South entrance (to exterior dining patio): A small ISA is provided, but if faces into the store.

Provide appropriate signage.

Exterior

The restaurant is located within a large shopping center complex; there are multiple possible vehicular entrances into what might be considered the BK parking lot. The Tow‐away warning sign at the driveway entrance southeast of the BK parking lot does not provide reclaiming information, and no other tow‐away warning signs are provided at the other possible entrances to the BK lot or at the designated accessible spaces.

Provide required signage and information.

Men's Toil The lavatory drain line is not completely covered.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Men's Toilet

The toilet paper dispenser (recessed combo unit) is mounted 39 1/4" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge of the dispenser (vs. 36" maximum required).

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Men's Toilet Room

The clearance below the side grab bar to the toilet paper dispenser is 0" (vs. 1 1/2" minimum required). Lower toilet paper dispenser to provide compliant The grab bar is mounted 33 1/8" AFF measured to its centeliine; the TP dispenser is mounted 21 1/2" AFF clearance. to its bottom (dispensing point).

Women's The clearance below the side grab bar to the toilet paper dispenser is 1/8" (vs. 1 1/2" minimum required). Lower toilet paper dispenser to provide required

Toilet

The grab bar is mounted 32 3/4" AFF measured to its centeliine; the TP dispenser is mounted 21" AFF to clearance.

Room its bottom (dispensing point).

Women's A coat hook is mounted on the back of the toilet room door at 72" AFF, side reach available (vs. 54" AFF Lower coat hook to 48 inches.

Toilet

maximum allowed).

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 26 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page98 of 158
Remedy

3147

Women's The floor drain cover is not fixed in place, creating a potential hazard.

Fix floor drain.

3157

Exterior Northeast entrance: A door stop stops the toilet room door 4 1/2" from opening 90°.

Remove or replace door stop to ensure door can open 90 degrees.

Exterior Tow‐away warning signs (2) do not provide a reclaiming address.

Provide required information and/or signage.

Exterior

There are two walkways onto the Burger King property/parking lot from the public sidewalk along McDowell Blvd.; only one of them is accessible. One's view (along the public sidewalk from a distance) of it is obscured by surrounding landscaping. No signage is provided to identify it, and no signage is provided at the inaccessible walkway to direct patrons to it.

Provide appropriate signage.

Interior

The loose ketchup dispenser requires two hands to operate. Where it currently sits, there is no place to set one of the little cups. As such one must hold the cup with one hand while operating the cup with the other.

Replace dispenser with one that can be used with one hand.

Interior

A total of 25 tables with 77 seating positions are provided in the restaurant. 4 accessible seating positions are required. 4 tables located along a wall in the front half of the store have been modified, presumably for accessibility. 3 of the 4 are marked with an ISA. (photos 31951‐31984) The 24" deep tables provide the required knee space, and are of a compliant height, but as arranged, they provide no place for a companion to sit ‐ except at one of the adjacent designated accessible tables. (photos 31985‐31995) A fixed bench has been removed from a 5th table, that is not marked with an ISA. From its wide side the knee space depth measured to the table support is 11 1/2" (vs. 19" minimum required). The required depth is available if one accesses the table from the end, but the table top is just 24" wide.

Provide 4 compliant accessible seating positions that are integrated into the remainder of the dining area.

Men's Toilet

The door latching turn‐bolt hardware is misaligned. As such, one must pinch and turn the handle while pushing the door tightly closed in order to lock the door.

Replair or replace door latching hardware so that it does not require grasping or pinching.

Men's Toilet

Two toilet paper dispensers are provided; one above and one below the side grab bar. The former is mounted 1" above the grab bar (vs. 12" minimum required), and obstructs access to it.

Remove the toilet paper dispenser above the grab bar.

Men's Toil Two toilet paper dispensers are provided; one above and one below the side grab bar.

Remove toilet paper dispenser from above the grab bar.

Men's Toilet

The paper towel dispenser is mounted 44" AFF to its pull‐down lever (vs. 40" AFF maximum allowed per Lower paper towel dispenser to 40" AFF. the CBC).

Men's Toil A cover is provided for the hot water supply line, but it is not in properly in place.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Women's The lavatory hot water supply line is not fully covered to prevent contact.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Women's Two toilet paper dispensers are provided; one above and one below the side grab bar. The former is Toilet mounted 3/4" above the grab bar (vs. 12" minimum required), and obstructs access to it.

Remove the dispenser above the grab bar.

Women's The clearance beneath the rear grab bar to the toilet flush mechanism is 3/4" (vs. 1 1/2" minimum

Toilet

required). The rear grab bar is mounted at 33 1/8" AFF measured to its centerline.

Raise grab bars one inch.

3160

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 27 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page99 of 158
Remedy

3160

Exterior A tow‐away warning sign is not provided at the driveway entrance into the property south of the store. Provide required information and/or signage.

Exterior

A curb ramp extends into the parking area, but the designated accessible parking spaces have been pushed outside its slope, and over 6' beyond the length of the adjacent spaces. This results in a 22' wide drive aisle at the designated accessible parking spaces. 24' is generally accepted as the minimum width for drive aisles for 90° parking. From what I have been able to find, the City of Fresno requires a minimum width of 27'.

This issue has been, or will be, remedied.

Exterior Tow‐away warning signs (2) do not provide a reclaiming address or an area code for the reclaiming phone Provide required information and/or signage. number.

Interior

A total of 24 tables with 79 seating positions are provided in the restaurant. 4 accessible seating positions are required. There are 5 tables that are indicated as accessible, albeit some ISAs are missing or worn off. 3 of the have issues. (photos 29362‐29378) The ISA has worn off this 30" deep table. Metal supports under this table reduce the clear knee space height to 26 3/8" in the middle and 23" on the outside edges. They also create an unseen hazard. (photos 29379‐29390) Marked with an ISA, this 30" deep table is compliant. (photos 29391‐29408) This table, not marked with an ISA, is similar to the first, except that it is just 24" deep. Unseen metal supports projecting into the required knee space create an unseen hazard. (photos 29409‐29416) Marked with an ISA, this 30" deep table is compliant. (photos 29417‐ 29429) This table is marked with an ISA, and is, itself, compliant. But it is located right at the entrance to the dining area from the service and beverage counter area. The accessible seating position is located such that a wheelchair user sitting at it will reduce the 55" wide access aisle to 28" (vs. 36" minimum required).

This seating area will be modified to have at least 4 accessible seating positions with dimensions that comply with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ Standards.

Men's Toilet Room

The accessible stall has an in‐swinging side‐opening door. The door is located 51 1/8" from the rear wall Reverse the swing of the door. (behind the floor‐mounted water closet). The required minimum clear floor depth for a floor‐mounted water closet is 59", as such the door swings across the required water closet clear floor space, which is not permitted.

Men's Toil The stall door latching hardware is missing.

Provide compliant door latching hardware.

Men's Toilet

The paper towel dispenser is mounted 45" AFF to its pull‐down lever (vs. 40" AFF maximum allowed per Lower paper towel dispenser to 40" AFF. the CBC).

Women's The hot water supply line under the lavatory is not fully covered to prevent contact.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Women's The drain and hot water supply lines under the lavatory are not fully covered to prevent contact.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Women's A large loose roll of toilet paper is stored on top of the side grab bar. The roll is too large to fit in the Toilet dispenser, which is empty. The roll obstructs access to the side grab bar, and because one hold the roll Room with one hand while using the other to take the paper, two hand operation is required.

Ensure that dispenser has toilet paper of the proper size, so that staff will not place loose roll on the grab bar.

Women's The side grab bar is not affixed tightly to the wall. It rotates in its fittings, and not all of the screws are in Properly affix grab bar to wall.

Toilet

place.

Women's Toilet Room

The accessible stall has an in‐swinging side‐opening door. The door is located 48 5/8" from the rear wall Reverse the swing of the door. (behind the floor‐mounted water closet). The required minimum clear floor depth for a floor‐mounted water closet is 59", as such the door swings across the required water closet clear floor space, which is not permitted.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 28 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page100 of 158
Remedy

3160

Women's Toilet room door: The door drags on the floor 5 1/2" from being opening 90°. The door will open 90°, but Repair door to ensure it does not drag and that it

Toilet

doing so requires a 15# force (vs. 5# maximum allowed).

requires no more than 5 lbs of force to open to a full 90

Room

degrees.

Women's The toilet stall door is not self‐closing.

Install self‐closing hardware.

3208

Exterior

Directional signage should be posted at the stoplight intersection of the driveway to Burger King/ 11th Street and Eureka Way indicating the accessible route off of Willis Street. Also, there are two accessible routes of travel from Willis Street, one from the corner and one further south. The accessible route from the corner has cross slopes over that exceed 6% and in the way of vehicular traffic. It is recommended to place the directional signage at the south pedestrian access on Willis Street indicating this route as the accessible route.

Add signage as recommended.

Exterior Unauthorized Parking signage does not give the name of a facility, but gives two different phone numbers. Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Men's Toilet Room

Slopes to the drain are over 3%.

A plate identical, or functionally equivalent, to the plate shown in photos 1‐3 attached hereto will be installed over this drain.

Men's Toilet

Toilet paper dispenser has two dispensing points depending on how the roll is installed. One is compliant Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location. at 33", one is not compliant at 39". Centerline to the dispenser is 36"

Men's Toil Paper towel dispenser is too high at 46".

Lower paper towel dispenser to max. 40" AFF.

Women's Slopes to the drain are over 3%. Toilet Room

A plate identical, or functionally equivalent, to the plate shown in photos 1‐3 attached hereto will be installed over this drain.

Women's Paper towel dispenser is too high at 46".

Lower paper towel dispener to max 40" AFF.

Women's Toilet paper dispenser has two dispensing points depending on how the roll is installed. One is compliant Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location. Toilet at 32.5", one is not compliant at 38.5". Centerline to the dispenser is 35.5"

3217

Exterior

Accessible route from the public way is not near the driveway entrance, but exists off of another street. The directional sign with the ISA is misleading, especially when the sign gets turned around on the pole, and does not really indicate the location of the accessible route. Suggest including verbiage with the directional sign and ISA that states "Pedestrian access off of Appian Way".

Provide recommended signage.

Exterior Unauthorized parking signage does not indicate vehicle reclaiming information.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Men's Toil Door hardware is too high at 51.5" centerline.

Lower door hardware to compliant height.

Men's Toilet

Rear bar is 30" long, and does not extend 24" past the centerline of the toilet.

Replace rear grab bar with bar that is 36" long and mounted in a compliant location.

Women's The dispensing point of the toilet paper dispenser is up to 48" from the rear wall.

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 29 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page101 of 158
Remedy

3217

Women's Door hardware is too high at 52.5" centerline.

Lower door hardware to compliant location.

3233

Exterior

The Tow‐away warning signs (3) are incorrectly filled‐out. They do not provide a reclaiming address or an area code for the reclaiming phone number. A complete phone number is provided on a second "Van Accessible" sign that is mounted below the tow‐away warning sign, but this sign belongs at the accessible parking spce, not here. "Minimum Fine $250" has been added 2 of the 3 signs. This also is not the proper location for this information.

Provide required signage and information.

Exterior A "Van Accessible" sign is not provided along with the ISA signage at the head of the designated accessible parking space.

Add required signage.

Exterior

West entrances (2): Exterior door hardware has been removed from the north door, and it appears to be abandoned altogether. The south door is locked to the outside. No directional signage is provided on the north door; an arrow pointing toward the main entrance is provided on the south door along with "Exit Door Only". An ISA is also provided on this door. An ISA with an arrow would be more correct here. (There are no exterior issues that prevents the south door from being accessible except that the threshold is 3/4" high and the exterior landing slopes up to 2.6%.)

Appropriate signage will be provided.

Interior

A total of 23 tables with 58 seating positions are provided in the restaurant. 3 accessible seating positions are required. 4 possible accessible tables are provided, but there are problems with each: (photos 25070‐25082) This table is not marked with an ISA, but its top has been modified, presumably to improve access. The clear knee space depth from the wide side is 17 1/4" (vs. 19" minimum required). Sufficient depth is provided from the ends, but the table is only 24" wide. (photos 25057, 25083‐25094) This table is marked with a surface‐applied raised ISA, which gets in the way of anyone sitting on the wide side of the table. Reagrding the wide side, the aisle is just 36" wide measured to the opposing table. A wheelchair user sitting in this position will reduce the clear width by at least 27", resulting in just a 9" wide aisle (vs. 36" minimum required). A wheelchair user sitting at the end of the table will project partway into the adjacent doorway. (photos 25095‐25105, 25064) This table is not marked with an ISA, but it is 1 od 2 that is 30" wide. The aisle on one side is 34" wide, and on the other 36" wide. A wheelchair user sittiing at these locations will reduce the clear width of the aisles to 7" and 9", respectively. (photos 25106‐25114) This table is not marked with an ISA. It provides the required knee spce depth, but the table is only 24" wide, and a wheelchair user sitting here will project into and obstruct access to the exit doorway.

This seating area will be modified to have at least 3 accessible seating positions with dimensions that comply with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ Standards.

Men's Toil The lavatory drain line is not insulated or otherwise covered to prevent contact.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Women's The lavatory drain and hot water suppy lines are not completely covered.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Women's Toilet room door: The door requires excessive force to open a full 90 °; there is a problem with the closer Repair closer.

Toilet

arm. The force required to open it the last 16" or so = 21# (vs. 5# maximum allowed).

3246

Exterior The tow‐away warning sign at the Capitol Expressway driveway entrance does not provide a reclaiming address or an area code for the phone number(s).

Provide required information and/or signage.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 30 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page102 of 158
Remedy

3246

Exterior

It is possible for vehicles to enter the site from the adjacent properties to the south and west. There is no Provide required information and/or signage. tow‐away warning sign at the driveway entrance behind the gas station from Senter Road, or at any of the other possible entry points southwest of the store.

Exterior 3 designated accessible parking spaces are provided. 1 of the three does not have an identification sign displaying an ISA at its head, and none of them provide the required "Minimum Fine $250" sign.

Provide compliant signage.

Interior

Northeast (Main) entrance: The loose floor mat is in very poor condition. Edges are delaminating from the mat, and they are raised as much as 3/4" above the floor. Pushed up against the wall, one corner of the mat is raised 2 1/2" above the floor.

Replace floor mat.

Interior Southeast entrance: The loose floor mat is in very poor condition. Edges are delaminating from the mat, Replace floor mat. and they are raised as much as 1 1/4" above the floor.

Interior

A total of 21 tables with 57 seating positions are provided in the restaurant. 3 accessible seating positions are required. 3 seating positions are identified as accessible. Two of these are compliant; the third has some issues. (photos 32663‐32681) These two 30" deep tables are compliant. (photos 32682‐32702) This 24" deep table provides compliant knee space, but it is positioned such that a wheelchair user sitting at it will project 9" directly in front of the southeast exit door. Additionally, if a wheelchair user were to utilize the full depth of the space dedicated to her, it would be difficult at best for a companion to make use of the opposing fixed bench.

An accessible table that complies with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ Standards will be added in a location other than next to the exterior door.

Men's Toilet

Two toilet paper dispensers are provided; one above and one below the side grab bar. The former is mounted 6 1/4" above the grab bar (vs. 12" minimum required), and obstructs access to it.

Remove the toilet paper dispenser above the grab bar.

Men's Toilet Room

Two toilet paper dispensers are provided; one above and one below the side grab bar. The latter is mounted 38 1/8" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge of the dispenser (vs. 36" maximum required).

Remove dispenser above grab bar and relocate lower toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Men's Toil Knob‐style door hardware requires tight grasping and twisting of the wrist to operate.

Replace hardware with compliant hardware.

Women's Two toilet paper dispensers are provided; one above and one below the side grab bar. The latter is Toilet mounted 38 7/8" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge of the dispenser (vs. 36" Room maximum required).

Remove toilet paper dispenser above the grab bar and relocate lower dispenser to compliant location.

Women's The drain and hot water supply lines under the lavatory are not fully covered to prevent contact.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Women's Two toilet paper dispensers are provided; one above and one below the side grab bar. The former is Toilet mounted 6 1/4" above the grab bar (vs. 12" minimum required), and obstructs access to it.

Remove toilet paper dispenser above the grab bar.

3355

Exterior Compliant tow‐away warning signage is not provided at either of the two driveway entrances onto the property from E. San Ysidro Blvd.

Provide required tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior The single designated accessible parking space does not have a sign that identifies it as van accessible. Add required signage.

Exterior The access aisle (of what should be a van accessible parking space) is 92" wide measured from centerline‐ Restripe to compliant dimensions. to‐centerline of striping.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 31 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page103 of 158
Remedy

3355

Exterior

A total of 5 fixed exterior dining tables are provided along the west side of the store. A bench has been Replace with table containing accessible seating

removed from the northernmost table, presumably in order to create an accessible table. The table itself position that complies with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ

is compliant, but an adjacent concrete trashcan obstructs access to it.

Standards.

Men's Toilet Room

The toilet stall door is not self‐closing, and it lacks a proper latch and U‐shaped handles. Since there is no Install self‐closing hardware and proper door hardware, latch, the door swings both in and out of the stall. The door is held sort‐of closed by a "wet floor" warning and remove "wet floor" warning cone. cone.

Men's Toil Insulation is provided on the lavatory drain and supply lines, but it is in very poor condition.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Men's Toilet

A "wet floor" warning cone (used to hold the stall door closed) obstructs the stall door maneuvering clear See previous solution. area and the required clear space within the stall.

Women's The double‐roll toilet paper dispenser is mounted 39" ‐ 49" from the water closet back wall measured to Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location. Toilet where paper is dispensed (vs. 36" maximum allowed).

Women's Insulation is provided on the lavatory drain and supply lines, but it is in very poor condition.

Cover lavatory drain line.

3441

Interior Access to the playplace structure has a slope on the rubber flooring at 29.7%.

This issue will be remedied.

3459

Interior The floor mat to the play place is not accessible to wheelchairs. The ramp edge is 27% slope and the vertical rise to the ramp is greater than 1/4".

This issue will be remedied.

Men's Toil The soap dispenser is 47" above the floor.

Lower soap dispenser to max. 40" AFF.

Men's Toil The toilet paper dispenser dispensing point can be up to 42" from the rear wall.

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Men's Toil The lavatory mixing valve requires pinching of the fingers and twisting of the wrist.

Replace lavatory controls.

Men's Toil Soap dispenser force 10#, paper towel dispenser force 17#, hand dryer 17#

All but soap dispenser will be remedied

Women's The soap dispenser is 47" above the floor.

Lower soap dispener to max 40" AFF.

Women's Toilet force to operate is 15#, paper towel dispenser is 10#, hand dryer is 12#, soap dispenser is 20#

All but soap dispenser will be remedied

3530

Exterior

The store is an island unto itself; bordered on all sides by roads. A ramp located west of the store provides access to the public sidewalk along the Redwood Highway (south). There is no identifying signage at the ramp or directional signage at any of the other possible decision/entry points onto the site to inform pedestrians of its existence and location.

Provide appropriate signage.

Exterior

2 designated accessible parking spaces are provided in the parking lot on the northwest side of the store. Install proper wheelstops. Wheel stops are not long enough and/or positioned properly to prevent vehicles from pulling forward in the spaces so that they cannot overhang and obstruct the required accessible route.

Men's Toil Sharp hose clamps are exposed beneath the lavatory.

Cover sharp hose clamps.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 32 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page104 of 158
Remedy

3530

Men's Toilet

The clearance beneath the rear grab bar to the toilet flush mechanism is 3/8" (vs. 1 1/2" minimum required). The rear grab bar is mounted at 33 1/4" AFF measured to its centerline.

Raise grab bars one inch.

Men's Toilet Room

The toilet seat cover dispenser is mounted 53" AFF measured to its dispensing point (vs. 40" AFF

Relocate toilet seat cover dispenser to a compliant

maximum allowed). Mounted on the wall behind the water closet, the required clear floor space in front location with dispensing point at most 40" AFF.

of it is not provided.

Women's The lavatory hot water supply line is not fully covered to prevent contact.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Women's The toilet seat cover dispenser is mounted 53" AFF measured to its dispensing point (vs. 40" AFF

Relocate toilet seat cover dispenser to a compliant

Toilet

maximum allowed). Mounted on the wall behind the water closet, the required clear floor space in front location with dispensing point at most 40" AFF.

Room of it is not provided.

Women's Stall door: The lavatory obstructs the required push side latch approach door maneuvering clear depth Relocate lavatory to provide compliant maneuvering

Toilet

(existing = 30 1/2" deep measured to the edge of the lavatory vs. 42" minimum required per the ADA; 44" clearance.

Room minimum required per the CBC).

Women's The toilet stall door is not self‐closing.

Install self‐closing hardware.

Women's Toilet Room

The toilet paper dispenser is mounted 45 5/8" AFF to its dispensing point (vs. 40" AFF minimum required), and 49" from the water closet back wall measured to the far edge of the dispenser (vs. 36" maximum required). This dispenser is much to large to be mounted on the wall below the side grab bar, where a dispenser is required.

Replace toilet paper dispenser with unit small enough to be located below the grab bar in a compliant location.

3546

Exterior Tow‐away warning signs (2) do not provide a reclaiming address or an area code for the reclaiming phone Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s). number.

Exterior Pavement markings relocated designated accessible parking spaces have been restriped, and old striping Repaint to ensure old markings are fully covered and

is poorly blacked‐out, which creates a confusing parking situation.

new markings are clear.

Exterior

A total of 12 tables with 30 seating positions are provided on the exterior dining patio. 2 accessible seating positions are required. 2 accessible tables / seating positions are provided, but one lacks companion seating.

This seating area will be modified to have at least 2 accessible seating positions with dimensions that comply with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ Standards.

Men's Toilet

The toilet paper dispenser is mounted too low. Its dispensing point is located 16” AFF (vs. 19” minimum Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location. AFF required).

Men's Toil The clearance beneath the rear grab bar to the toilet supply line is 7/8" (vs. 1 1/2" minimum required). Raise grab bars one inch.

Men's Toilet

Toilet room door: A wall‐mounted paper towel dispenser is located within and obstructs the required pull Relocate paper towel dispenser to compliant location. side door maneuvering clear area.

Men's Toil The lavatory hot supply line is not wrapped or otherwise insulated to prevent contact.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Women's The lavatory is located at the end of a 102" long x 42 1/2" wide alcove. A 9" deep wall‐mounted paper Toilet towel dispenser located 4' from the end wall reduces the clear width of the alcove to 33 1/4" (vs. 36" Room minimum required). It would be best if the dispenser was mounted on the wall adjacent to the lavatory.

Relocate paper towel dispenser to wall adjacent to lavatory.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 33 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page105 of 158
Remedy

3546

Women's The lavatory hot supply line is not wrapped or otherwise insulated to prevent contact.

Cover drain and supply lines.

3580

Exterior

East entrance: The exterior pavement within the required pull side latch approach door maneuvering clear area slopes up to 5.1% (vs. 2% maximum allowed). A directional sign posted on the window by the door directs patrons to the north entrance. There is no similar directional or warning signage inside the store.

Provide directional signage inside the store.

Exterior No tow‐away warning sign is provided at the southeast driveway entrance from Commerce Blvd. (A compliant and correctly filled‐out sign is provided at the northeast driveway entrance.)

Provide required tow‐away signage.

Exterior

There is just one possible accessible route provided from the public sidewalk to the store that doesn't

Replace curb ramp with compliant curb ramp.

require patrons to pass behind parked vehicles; it involves the use of what amounts to a built‐up asphalt

curb ramp located off the northeast corner of the store. The pavement slopes up to 8.2%, which is < the

8.33% maximum allowed, but the side flare slopes as much as 18.2% (vs. 10% maximum allowed). The

curb ramp also does not meet other requirements for contrast, grooved borders, and detectable warnings.

Exterior

2 newly relocated and paved designated accessible parking spaces are provided in the parking lot on the north side of the store. A roughly 3' wide strip of pavement that runs across the back length of the spaces slopes between 2.6% ‐ 5.5%, and the pavement along the far west edge slopes between 4.2% ‐ 11.1% (vs. 2% maximum allowed).

Repave to achieve compliant slopes.

Interior

A total of 22 tables with 79 seating positions are provided in the restaurant. 4 accessible seating positions This seating area will be modified to have at least 4

are required. Two tables are designated as accessible, and they provide the required knee space, but they accessible seating positions with dimensions that

are fixed in place in a manner that makes them essentially single‐user tables (photos 18474‐18502). 1 comply with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ Standards. At

other table meets the requirements for an accessible dining table (photos 18515‐18526), but it is not

least two of these seating positions will be at locations

identified as such. The ends of two other tables can be used, but they are not identified as accessible, and that the person using a wheelchair will be facing

the ends are only 24" wide (photo 18508, 18923‐18937).

windows and/or other tables.

3587

Exterior Tow‐away warning signs (2) do not provide a reclaiming address.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior Southwest entrance: An ISA is provided on the door, but it faces inside, not outside, as required.

Provide appropriate signage.

Men's Toilet

Coin‐operated door hardware with a thumb‐turn lock requires tight grasping, pinching, and/or twisting of Replace coin‐operated door hardware with compliant

the wrist to operate.

hardware.

Women's Coin‐operated door hardware with a thumb‐turn lock requires tight grasping, pinching, and/or twisting of Replace coin‐operated door hardware with compliant

Toilet the wrist to operate.

hardware.

3777

Exterior

A total of 7 tables with 30 seating positions are provided in the restaurant. 2 accessible seating positions are required. 2 designated accessible tables/seating positions are provided, but neither of them provide compliant knee space. Angled metal tabletop supports under the tables reduce the clear knee height to as low as 25 3/8" AFF (vs. 27" minimum AFF required), and torn and hanging sheets of sharp thick plastic hang as low as 24" beneath one of them. Both of these conditions create easily unseen hazards.

This seating area will be modified to have at least 2 accessible seating positions with dimensions that comply with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ Standards.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 34 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page106 of 158
Remedy

3777

Exterior The exit gate from the exterior dining patio does not have a smooth surface over the bottom 10" of its push side, as required.

Install required 10" panel.

Exterior

A single designated accessible parking space is provided on the west side of the store. Its asphalt surface This issue will be remedied, with one possible remedy

slopes as much as 8.4% (vs. 2% maximum allowed).

consisting of relocating a compliant accessible parking

space across the drive aisle.

Exterior

A single designated accessible parking space is provided on the west side of the store. Although signed "Van Accessible", it is not. Its access aisle is 60" wide (vs. 96" minimum required for a van accessible access aisle), and the access aisle is located on the driver's side of the designated accessible parking space. Access aisles for single spaces and for van accessible spaces are required to be located on the passenger side when the vehicle is pulled forward into the space.

This issue will be remedied, with one possible remedy consisting of relocating a compliant accessible parking space across the drive aisle.

Exterior

This store is located within a large shopping center; there are multiple site entry points. The tow‐away The required signage and information will be provided. warning signs (2) located at the driveway entrances from North Tustin Street do not provide the required reclaiming address and phone number.

Interior

A total of 21 tables with 65 seating positions are provided in the restaurant. 4 accessible seating positions This seating area will be modified to have at least 4 are required. 4 tables are designated as accessible, but they are not: (photos 27358, 27361‐27378) This accessible seating positions with dimensions that table does not provide the required 19" knee space depth (existing = 10 1/2" on one side and 14 1/4" on comply with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ Standards. another). (photos 27358, 27379‐27408) The knee space depth at this designated accessible table is 17 3/4" deep (vs. 19" minimum required). It and the other three around it (not marked with ISAs) offer, perhaps, the best opportunity among the existing tables for compliance, however. The knee space depth on each of them ranges from 17 1/2" ‐ 18", and when utilized by a wheelchair user they likely will only be able to accommodate 2 people. (photos 27357, 27409‐27414) There is no clear access to this corner table, especially if patrons are sitting at the adjacent tables. (photos 27357, 27409, 27415‐27430) This table does not provide the required knee space depth (11" to table support vs. 19" minimum required). If one were to attempt utilize the clear space to the side of the post, she would have to sit right up against one of the other tables, and only have 20" of table overlapping the seating position.

Interior

A wall‐mounted dispenser for sugars and spices is located in the corner adjacent to the beverage counter such that neither a compliant forward or side reach is possible (per ADAAG Fig. A3(a)). It is also mounted too high (48" ‐ 63" AFF vs. 48" maximum allowed for unobstructed forward reach, 54" maximum for side reach).

The wall‐mounted dispenser will be lowered.

Interior

The cover on the drain partially under the beverage counter does not sit flush with the top of the drain. It A plate identical, or functionally equivalent, to the plate

creates a vertical offset as high as 1 1/4" in front of the counter.

shown in photos 1‐3 attached hereto will be installed

over this drain.

Interior

North entrance to patio dining area: The push side door maneuvering clear area width = 9 1/4" measured Signage will be added directing persons with disabilities

to the adjacent table vs. 12" minimum required. The door hardware/latch is operational.

to double‐door entrance, or the latch will be removed

during business hours.

Men's Toilet Room

Toilet room door: High chairs stored outside the toilet room obstruct the required pull side front

The high chairs will be relocated.

approach door maneuvering clear area (depth 50 1/2", width = 9" measured to the chairs vs. 60" and 18"

minimum required, respectively).

Men's Toil The toilet paper dispenser is mounted 49" AFF to its bottom/dispensing point.

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 35 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page107 of 158
Remedy

3777

Men's Toil The lavatory drain and hot water supply lines are not completely covered.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Women's The clearance above the side grab bar to the toilet paper dispenser is 5 3/4" (vs. 12" minimum required). Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location

Toilet

This is the only toilet paper dispenser in the stall.

below the grab bar.

Women's The lavatory drain and hot water supply lines are not completely covered.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

3827

Exterior Tow‐away warning signs (2) do not provide a reclaiming address or phone number.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior

A walkway located just south of the intersection of Story and S. White provides pedestrian access from the public sidewalk to the store, but it is not accessible; an accessible route is provided to the store from the public sidewalk along Story Road. Directional signage is not provided at the former nor is an ISA provided at the latter to indicate the location of the accessible route to the store.

Add directional signage.

Exterior

A delineated accessible route is provided to the store from the public sidewalk along Story Road. There is Provide properly beveled vertical offset. a 3/4" vertical offset where the concrete walkway meets the asphalt drive‐thru lane (vs. 1/4" maximum allowed, 1/2" maximum if beveled at a 1:2 maximum slope).

Exterior

A delineated accessible route is provided to the store from the public sidewalk along Story Road. The asphalt pavement along the route has cross slopes between 3.0% ‐ 4.4% (vs. 2% maximum allowed) where it meets the bottom of the ramp just off the northwest corner of the store.

Replace pavement adjacent to ramp at northwest corner of the stores.

Exterior

Two diagonal designated accessible parking spaces are located in the parking lot on the southwest side of Restripe to compliant dimensions. the store. Measured on the square for the full width of the access aisle, the spaces are 9'‐7" (van) and 11'‐ 0" (standard) long. The CBC requires parking spaces and their access aisles to be a minimum of 18' long, and both standards require access aisles to be fully engaged with the full length of the accessible parking spaces they serve.

Interior

A total of 3 tables with 6 seating positions are provided in the play structure area. 1 accessible seating This seating area will be modified to have at least 1

position is required; 0 are provided. Fixed seats have been removed from one table, presumably to make accessible seating position with dimensions that comply

it accessible, but the knee space beneath it is not high or deep enough.

with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ Standards.

Interior

Sanitary hand wipes are provided in a dispenser located between the end of the beverage counter and a dining booth. Access to them requires a 30" deep side reach over an obstruction (vs. 24" maximum allowed).

Move sanitary hand wipes to an accessible location.

Men's Toil The accessible toilet stall door is not self‐closing.

Install self‐closing hardware.

Men's Toil U‐shaped pull hardware is not provided on both sides of the accessible toilet stall door.

Move pull hardware below latch.

Men's Toilet

The floor within the accessible toilet stall slopes up to 4.0% to drain (vs. 2% maximum allowed).

Redo floor around drain to ensure compliant slope and cross slope.

Women's The accessible toilet stall door is not self‐closing.

Install self‐closing hardware.

Women's The toilet paper dispenser is mounted too low. Its dispensing point is located 16 1/4” AFF (vs. 19” Toilet minimum AFF required).

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 36 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page108 of 158
Remedy

3827

Women's The floor in front of and within the accessible toilet stall slopes up to 3.6% to drain (vs. 2% maximum

Toilet

allowed).

Redo floor around drain to ensure compliant slope and cross slope.

4405

Exterior

Tow‐away warning signs are not provided at either of the driveway entry points into the parking lot or at the accessible parking spaces. A sign is provided in front of Midas at the shared driveway entrance southwest of the store, but it lacksreclaiming information.

Provide required signage and information.

Exterior "NO PARKING" is not painted in the designated accessible parking space access aisle.

Paint "no parking" in access aisle.

Exterior

A manhole cover located in the designated accessible parking space access aisle does not sit flush with the BKC will provide documentation demonstrating that it

surface of the pavement. The resulting vertical offset is as high as 1/2" (vs. 1/4" maximum allowed; 1/2" does not have the legal right to fix this element. In the

maximum if beveled at a 1:2 slope).

absence of such evidence, the surface of manhole cover

will be raised so that it is flush with the surface of the

access aisle.

Men's Toilet Room

Stall door: There are two problems with the location of the stall door that, as it is currently configured, are in conflict with each other. First, the stall door is located 11 1/2" from the corner opposite the water closet (vs. 4" maximum allowed). Second, there is insufficient pull side door maneuvering clear width (existing = 15" vs. 18" minimum required). The first issue calls for the door to be moved closer to the corner; the second calls for it to be moved further away. There is room to move the door further from the corner to achieve the required 18" clearance, but a surface‐mounted combo PT/trashcan unit will obstruct the door. The door could be reswung so that it will be hinged on what is now the latch side. This can result in compliance with both requirements.

The door will be reswung so that it will be hinged on what is now the latch side

Men's Toilet

The water closet water supply line exits the wall above the rear grab bar. As such it obstructs access to the rear grab bar.

Auto‐flush controls will be provided.

Women's The toilet stall door is not self‐closing. Toilet

Self‐closing hardware will be installed or, in the alternative, the partition and stall door will be removed.

Women's U‐shaped hardware is not provided on both sides of the stall door below the latch as required. Toilet Room

Install required U‐shaped hardware on both sides of stall door unless the partition and stall door are removed.

Women's The floor around the stall door slopes up to 6.2% to drain. Toilet Room

A plate identical, or functionally equivalent, to the plate shown in photos 1‐3 attached hereto will be installed over this drain.

Women's Toilet Room

Stall door: The lavatory obstructs the required push side latch approach door maneuvering clear depth (existing = 28" deep measured to the edge of the lavatory vs. 42" minimum required per the ADA; 44" minimum required per the CBC). (Note: The lavatory is mounted 26 3/4" from the adjacent wall vs. 18" minimum required.)

Lavatory will be relocated or, in the alternative, the partition and stall door will be removed.

4514

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 37 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page109 of 158
Remedy

4514

Exterior

Entrance door nearest to accessible parking does not have an ISA symbol on it. There is not directional signage to main door entrance on Webster Street. Recommend installing ISA on entry door nearest to parking.

Provide appropriate signage.

Exterior Entrance door nearest to accessible parking does not have an ISA symbol on it. Door clearances meet accessibility requirements, except for door closer force to operate, which can be adusted.

Provide appropriate signage.

Exterior Unauthorized parking signage does not contain verbiage as specified by code and applies to parking in the Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s). lot in general and does not specifically address the accessible stalls.

Unisex Door hardware is a compliant type, but operated by a key which requires pinching the fingers and twisting Provide accessible key holder. Restroom of the wrist.

Unisex Res Toilet paper dispenser dispensing point up to 39" from rear wall.

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Unisex Door hardware is a compliant type, but operated by a key which requires pinching the fingers and twisting Provide accessible key holder. Restroom of the wrist.

4552

Exterior The tow‐away warning sign posted at the driveway entrance from East Dyer Road does not provide a reclaiming address.

Provide required signage and information.

Exterior No tow‐away warning sign is provided at the driveway entrance from Halladay Street.

Provide required signage and information.

Exterior One designated accessible parking space is provided. A second adjacent space appears to have been abandoned, but the pavement markings, though in poor condition, are visible and misleading.

Black out pavement markings on inaccessible parking space.

Exterior

A single dining table is provided on the exterior patio located on the south side of the store. The table is accessible, however it is positioned such that if a wheelchair user were sitting at it, she would be just outside the swing of the south entry door and within its required pull side door maneuvering clear area.

Turn table clockwise 90 degrees and relocate trash can to provide compliant accessible seating position that does not block the door maneuvering clearance.

Interior East (main) entrance: Corners of the floor mat have delaminated and pulled up as high as 1" above the floor.

Replace floor mat.

Interior

A total of 26 tables with 65 seating positions are provided in the restaurant. 4 accessible seating positions are required. None of the tables are identified as accessible. The table in photos 27735‐27747 is located in the sunroom portion of the dining area. It does not provide the required knee clear space width (existing = 27 1/2" wide measured between table leg bases vs. 30" minimum required. (photos 27748‐27754).

Reconfigure to ensure 4 accessible seating positions that comply with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ Standards.

Men's Toilet Room

A bolt‐style latch that was mounted at 56 5/8" AFF (vs. 48" AFF maximum allowed) has been removed, intentionally or otherwise. Because of the keypad door hardware, anyone with the code can enter the room at any time, which is very problematic since the toilet stall has been removed. (What appears to be a locking mechanism ‐ pinching & twisting required ‐ on the door hardware does not lock the door. We tried multiple times and multiple ways to get it to lock.)

Install compliant deadbolt to ensure privacy.

Men's Toil The lavatory drain and hot water supply lines are not completely covered.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Women's The soap dispenser is mounted 43 1/2" AFF to the push pad (vs. 40" AFF maximum allowed).

Lower soap dispener to max 40" AFF.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 38 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page110 of 158
Remedy

4641

Exterior South entrance: Both an ISA and an ISA with an arrow (pointing to the other entrance) are displayed outside this door.

Provide appropriate signage.

Women's The wall‐mounted electric hand dryer is partially located behind the toilet room door. It prevents the Toilet door from opening 90°, as required.

Move hand dryer to the left sufficiently to permit door to open 90 degrees.

6755

Exterior A roughly 15' long section of walkway along the southwest side of the store that provides access to and from the west entrance door has cross slopes as high as 3.9% (vs. 2% maximum allowed).

Signage to accessible route will be provided.

Exterior

Signage on the outside of the west entrance door directs patrons to the southeast entrance for accessibility. The noncompliant issues related to this door are noted on other lines herein. There is no warning or directional signage inside the store to indicate the direction to or location of the accessible exit.

Appropriate signage will be added

Exterior A ramp provides access from the public sidewalk along Monterey Road to the store. Its top landing slopes Replace top landing with surface that slopes a

up to 4.1% with cross slopes as high as 3.8% (vs. 2% maximum for both).

maximum of 2% in any direction.

Exterior A ramp provides access from the public sidewalk along Monterey Road to the store. Handrails are provided, but they do not extend 12" beyond the bottom of the ramp run.

Handrails will be returned to 90 degrees.

Exterior Pavement markings at an abandoned designated accessible parking space is poorly blacked‐out, which creates a confusing parking situation.

Repaint to ensure old markings are fully covered

Exterior The tow‐away warning sign at the driveway entrance from Monterey Road does not provide a reclaiming Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s). address or an area code for the reclaiming phone number.

Interior

The "Take a JobApp" dispenser is mounted 57" AFF above a 42" deep counter. The maximum allowed side Move job applications to accessible location. reach depth over an obstruction depends on the length of the obstruction, but it may never be > 54" AFF. The maximum allowed side reach depth over an obstruction is 24".

Men's Toilet

The toilet stall door swings across the required water closet clear floor space. The door is located 46 1/4" Reverse the swing of the door. from the rear wall; the floor‐mounted water closet requires a minimum clear floor space depth of 59".

Men's Toilet

The water closet is located 20"‐20 3/4" from the side wall measured to the center of the fixture (vs. 18" Relocate water closet to compliant location. required).

Men's Toilet

The toilet paper dispenser is mounted too low. Its dispensing point is located 16 1/8” AFF (vs. 19” minimum AFF required).

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Women's The lavatory hot supply line is not completely wrapped or otherwise insulated to prevent contact.

Cover drain and supply lines.

Women's The toilet stall door swings across the required water closet clear floor space. The door is located 46 1/2" Make the toilet room a single‐user. There is no way to Toilet from the rear wall; the floor‐mounted water closet requires a minimum clear floor space depth of 59". swing the door that is close to compliant.

Women's A clearance below the side grab bar to the toilet paper dispenser is 1 1/4" (vs. 1 1/2" minimum required). Raise grab bars one inch.

Women's The toilet paper dispenser is mounted too low. Its dispensing point is located 16 1/8” AFF (vs. 19” Toilet minimum AFF required).

Relocate toilet paper dispenser to compliant location.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 39 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page111 of 158
Remedy

6816

Exterior The designated van accessible parking access aisle is 91" wide measured centerline‐to‐centerline of the striping (vs. 96" minimum required).

Restripe to compliant dimensions.

Men's Toilet Room

The drain line and supply lines under the lavatory are covered, but the drain line is not covered completely. What appears to be an abandoned water filter of some type is mounted to the wall under the lavatory; elements on it are sharp.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Women's The clearance beneath the rear grab bar to the toilet flush mechanism is 1" (vs. 1 1/2" minimum required). Raise grab bars one inch.

Women's The water closet flush mechanism is located on the narrow side of the fixture.

Move flush mechanism to wide side of toilet.

6931

Exterior

Tow‐away warning signs (2) do not provide a reclaiming address. (No tow signs are provided at any of the Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s). entrances from the shopping center into what might be considered Burger King's parking lot, or at the parking spaces themselves.)

Men's Toil The drain and hot water supply lines are not completely covered.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Women's The floor in in the center of the room, and in front of the lavatory slopes up to 4.6% to drain Toilet Room

A plate identical, or functionally equivalent, to the plate shown in photos 1‐3 attached hereto will be installed over this drain.

6947

Exterior The slope of the gutter adjacent to the curb ramp is 7.9%.

This issue will be remedied by Burger King Corp.

Exterior Unauthorized parking signage does not indicate the name of the tow location.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

9913

Exterior

There are 3 driveway entrances into the large complex of which this store is a part. There are a total of 6 tow‐away waning signs posted at these entrances and at locations interior to the site. All have issues: (photos 29987‐29995) These 2 signs lack the required reclaiming address and phone number. The information that has been applied to the sign has peeled nearly off. (photos 29997‐30005) These 3 signs do not provide a reclaiming address or an area code for the reclaiming phone number. (photos 30006‐ 3009) The reclaiming information on this sign has deteriorated, and is barely legible. No reclaiming address is provided.

This issue will be remedied.

Exterior Northeast entrance: No ISA sign is provided at this door.

Provide appropriate signage.

Exterior North (central) entrance: A large concrete(?) trashcan is located within and obstructs the required pull side door maneuvering clear area.

This issue will be remedied.

Exterior

A built‐up curb ramp is provided within the designated accessible parking spaces and their shared access This issue will be remedied. aisle. As a result, at least this portion of the spaces slopes up to 10.7% (vs. 2% maximum allowed). Spaces of compliant length and slope exist outside the line of the curb ramp, but wheel stops are pulled forward, and there is no effective indication that the curb ramp is not a part of the spaces.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 40 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page112 of 158
Remedy

9913

Exterior 3 small 2‐person tables are provided on the patio outside the store. No accessible table is provided.

This seating area will be modified to have at least 1 accessible seating position with dimensions that comply with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ Standards.

Interior

A total of 18 tables with 65 seating positions are provided in the restaurant. 4 accessible seating positions are required. 3 tables/seating positions are identified as accessible. (photos 30283‐30294) A turned table leg base reduces the width of the clear knee floor space at the table to 28 3/4" wide (vs. 30" minimum required). The table is 24" deep. If a wheelchair user were to utilize the full depth of the space dedicated to her, it would be difficult at best for a companion to make use of the opposing fixed bench. (photos 30302‐30311) This table is compliant. (photos 30317‐30327) This table compliant. It is only 25 3/4" deep, but it is movable, so companions will be able to utilize the fixed bench without difficulty.

This seating area will be modified to have at least 4 accessible seating positions with dimensions that comply with either the 1991 or 2010 DOJ Standards.

10567

Exterior Play structure area matting is raised 2 1/2" ‐ 2 3/4" above the concrete pavement. Ramped edging slopes This issue will be remedied. up to 28.7%.

Exterior

The designated van accessible parking access aisle is 91 3/4" wide measured centerline‐to‐centerline of the striping (vs. 96" minimum required). Parking space striping markings and striping are faded and in generally poor condition. (On the day of the survey a construction crew palced an asphalt topping over the surface of the designated accessible parking spaces. The spaces and access aisle were restriped at compliant widths.)

Restripe to compliant dimensions.

Exterior

The tow‐away warning sign at the Hemlock Avenue driveway entrance does not provide a reclaiming address. (No other tow‐away warning signs are provided at the other entrances into the Burger King parking lot form the adjacent retail center.)

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

Men's Toil Toilet room door deadbolt latch is mounted at 49 ‐50 1/2" AFF (vs. 48" maximum allowed).

Lower deadbolt latch.

Men's Toilet

Covers are provided for the lavatory drain and supply lines, but a portion of the drain line is not covered Cover hot water supply and drain lines. as required, and both of the angle stops are sharp and exposed.

Women's Covers are provided for the lavatory drain and supply lines, but they are improperly installed. A portion of Cover drain line. Toilet the drain line is not covered as required.

11490

Exterior Tow‐away warning signs are provided at both driveway entrances to the property. The text does match Provide required signage and information. that required, and the required reclaiming information is not provided.

Exterior The designated van accessible parking access aisle is 92 1/2" wide measured to the centerline of the striping (vs. 96" minimum required).

Restripe to compliant dimensions.

Exterior

North entrance: The door is marked with two different and conflicting ISA signs. A standard ISA and an ISA with an arrow pointing toward the other entrance are both displayed. Except for the noncompliant door force issue noted above, no other noncompliant conditions were noted at this door.

The ISA with an arrow will be removed.

Men's Toil A cover is provided for the hot water supply line, but it is not in properly in place.

Cover hot water supply and drain lines.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 41 of 42

Store # Location Issue

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page113 of 158
Remedy

13284

Men's Toil The drain is recessed into the floor greater than 1/4".

Raise drain cover.

Women's Women's stall door is not self‐closing.

Install self‐closing hardware.

13580

Exterior Tow‐away warning signs (2) provided at the Vista Village Drive driveway entrance do not provide a reclaiming address or phone number.

Provide required information in tow‐away sign(s).

15079

Interior

The beverage machine is located in a corner that is created by a portable storage/condiment counter. The controls located close to the corner are positioned such that a side reach is not possible (per ADAAG Fig. A3(a)). Because toe/knee space is not available under the beverage counter, a compliant forward reach also is not possible. The push‐bar beverage controls are located 48 1/2" AFF measured to the bottoms of the bars. The ice dispensing control is located 53 1/2" AFF measured to its bottom. If the legs of the beverage machine could be removed so that these controls were within forward reach range (48" AFF maximum allowed), and the unit could be moved forward so that it hangs 6" or so off the edge of the service counter to create the required toe/knee space needed for forward approach access, it appears as though a compliant condition could be created.

This issue has been, or will be, remedied

Interior

Portable barriers create a queue line in front of the main service counter. The clear width between the Since these are movable, ensure that staff knows to

stanchion based is reduced to 31 1/2" at the head of the line (vs. 36" minimum required; 32" minimum at maintain 36" between the bases of the stanchions at all

a point).

times.

16563

Exterior

A tow‐away warning sign is provided at driveway entrance (along 10th St, SW) to the shopping center of which this store is a part. The sign does not provide a reclaiming phone number or address. Tow‐away signs are not provided at the other possible entrances to the Burger King parking lot or at the designated accessible parking spaces.

Provide missing tow‐away sign and provide required information in existing tow‐away sign(s).

Exterior

A pedestrian route is provided from the southeast corner of the store to the public sidewalk along 10th Street SW. Where the walkway meets the drive‐thru lane, there is a 1/2" vertical offset that is not beveled at a minimum 1:2 slope as required

The the change in level will be bevelled to achieve compliance.

Exterior

An 18' long ramp is provided just off the southwest corner of the store. It does not provide a compliant bottom landing, and its handrails do not extend 12" beyond the bottom of the ramp run as required. The bottom of the ramp ends at an asphalt driveway, which continues to slope as much as 12.1% (vs. 2% maximum allowed) for over 5' beyond the bottom of the ramp.

The ramp will be reconfigured to ensure compliant bottom landing, and compliant handrail extensions will be provided.

Exterior Southeast entrance: Push side front approach door maneuvering clear depthh = 39" to stored high chairs The high chairs will be relocated. (vs. 48" minimum width required).

Men's Toil Insulation is provided for the lavatory drain and supply lines, but a portion of the drain line is not covered. Fully cover drain line.

Women's Insulation is provided for the lavatory drain and supply lines, but it is not properly installed. A significant Cover drain line and hot water supply. Toilet portion of the drain line is not covered, and the hot supply line is not covered at all.

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C‐11‐00667‐WHA (JSC)) ‐ Settlement Agreement Ex. A

Page 42 of 42

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page114 of 158
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT B

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page115 of 158

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp . (C-11-00667-WHA (JSC)) - Settlement Agreement Exhibit B

Element

Applicable Standard

Acceptable Measurement

Van access aisle width. Accessible parking space width.
Access aisle width. Accessible parking space depth. Accessible parking space slope.
Access aisle slope. Accessible route running slopes. Accessible routes cross slopes.
Slope of gutters and surfaces immediately adjacent to curb ramp or
accessible route Curb ramp front to back slope.
Curb ramp cross slope.
Curb ramp flared side slopes. Curb ramp width (CBC)
Curb ramp width (ADAAG)

Min 8' Title 24 § 1129B.4.2. DOJ Stds. § 4.1.2(5)(b).
Min 9' wide Title 24 § 1129B.4.1
Min 5' Title 24 § 1129B.4.1. DOJ Stds. § 4.1.2(5)(a).
Min. 18' long. Title 24 § 1129B.4.1
Max 2% Title 24 § 1129B.4.4.
DOJ Stds. § 4.6.3
Max 2% Title 24 § 1129B.4.4.
DOJ Stds. § 4.6.3
Max 5% Title 24 § 1133B.7.3
DOJ Stds. § 4.3.7 Max 1/4" per foot Title 24 § 1133B.7.1.3 DOJ Stds. § 4.3.7
Max 5% within 4' of top or bottom. Title 24 § 1127B.5.3 DOJ Stds. § 4.7.2
Max 8.33% Title 24 § 1127B.5.3. DOJ Stds. §§ 4.7.2. 4.8.2
Max 2% Title 24 1133B.5.3.1.
DOJ Stds. § 4.8.6
Max 10% Title 24 § 1127B.5.3
DOJ Stds. § 4.3.7
Min. 4' (48") Title 24 § 1127B.5.2
Min. 36" DOJ Stds. § 4.7.3

Min 7'10" Min 8'10" Min. 4'10" Min. 17' Max 3% Max 3% Max 6.6% Max 3% Max 7%
Max 10% Max 3% Max 12.5% Min. 44" Min. 35"

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page116 of 158

Element Ramp running slope.
Ramp cross slope. Top ramp landing (CBC) Top ramp landing (ADAAG)
Bottom landing depth. Ramp width.
Landing slopes. Exterior Accessible route width.
Door hardware location. Door opening force.
Door closing speed. Door width
Door maneuvering clearance.
Turning space radius. Counter heights (CBC) Counter heights (ADAAG) Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C-11-00667-WHA)

Applicable Standard
Max 8.33% Title 24 § 1133B.5.3.
DOJ Stds. § 4.8.2 Max 2%
Title 24 1133B.5.3.1. DOJ Stds. § 4.8.6

Acceptable Measurement Max 9%
Max 3%

Min. 60" x 60"; doors may not reduce width of landing to less than 42"
Title 24 § 1133B.5.4.2 & 1003.3.4.4
2004 ADAAG § 405.7.3 requires 60 inches in length. See also DOJ Stds. §
4.8.4(1) & (2) (same).
At least as wide as ramp and min. 72" in direction of ramp run
Title 24 § 1133B.5.4.5 & .6

Min. 59" in length and Min.imum width of any ramp
segment leading to it.
Min. 59" in length
At least as wide as ramp and min. 64" in direction of ramp
run

Min. 48" Title 24 § 1133B.5.2.2 Title 24 § 1127B.5.2
Level Title 24 1133B.5.4.1
DOJ Stds. 4.8.4 48"
Title 24 § 1133B..7.1
30" to 44" Title 24 § 1133B.2.5.2

Min. 44" Max 3% Min. 44" 28" to 46"

Max 5 lbs Title 24 § 1133B.2.5 DOJ Stds. § 4.13.11(2)(b)

Max 7 lbs.

Min. 3 secs. Title 24 § 1133B.2.5.1 DOJ Stds. § 4.13.10.

Min. 2.8 seconds

Min. 32" Title 24 § 1133B.1.1.1.1
DOJ Stds. § 4.13.5 Title 24 § 1133B.2.4.2 &.3 and Figs.
11B-26A & 11B-26B. DOJ Stds. § 4.13.6 & Fig 25
Min. 60" Title 24 § 1118B.3
DOJ Stds. 4.2.3

1" less than the required width
One inch less than most strigent applicable dimension in Title 24, Figs. 11B-26A & 11B-26B or DOJ Stds. Fig.
25
Min. 59"

28" to 34" Title 24 § 1122B.4

26" to 35"

Max 36" DOJ Stds. § 7.2(1)

Max 37"

Settlement Agreement - Ex. B

Page 2 of 4

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page117 of 158

Element Reach range. Side reach over obstruction
Clear floor space Table top height.

Applicable Standard
Title 24 Figs. 11B-5C & 11B-5D DOJ Stds. Figs. 5 & 6
Max. 46" high Max 24" back Title 24 Fig. 11B-5D(c) DOJ Stds Fig. 6(c) Min. 30" x 48" Title 24 § 1118B.4.1 DOJ Stds. § 4.2.4.1
28" to 34" Title 24 § 1122B.4

Acceptable Measurement +/- 1" from required reaches
ATM sliding scale DOJ Stds § 4.34.3(b)
Min. 29" x 47"
27"- 35"

Clear floor space at accessible seating spaces
Knee clearance at accessible seating spaces
Lavatory rim height.
Mirror height (bottom edge). Lavatory centerline.

Min. 30" x 48"; not overlapping knee space by more than 19"
Title 24 § 1122B.2 & 1118B.4. DOJ Stds. §§ 4.32.2 & 4.2.4
Min. 27" high; Min. 30" wide; Min. 19" deep Title 24 § 1122B.3 DOJ Stds. § 4.32.3
Max 34" Title 24 § 1115B.2.1.2.1
DOJ Stds. § 4.19.2 Max 40".
Title 24 § 1115B.9.1.2 DOJ Stds. § 4.19.6 Min. 18"
Title 24 § 1115B.2.1.2.1

Min. 29" x 47" not overlapping knee space by
more than 25"
Min. 26-1/2" high Min. 29" wide Min. 16" deep
Max 35"
Max 42"
Min. 16"

Max height dispenser controls (towels, sanitary napkins, diaper
changing station, etc)
Water closet and urinal flush controls.

Max 40" Title 24 § 1115B.9.2
Max 44" Title 24 § 1115B.2.1.2 & 1115B.2.1.1.2.
DOJ Stds. § 4.16.5 & 4.18.4

Max 42" Max 45"

Door maneuvering clearance. Water closet centerline.

Title 24 § 1133B.2.4.2 &.3 and Figs. 11B-26A & 11B-26B.
DOJ Stds. § 4.13.6 & Fig 25

One inch less than most strigent applicable dimension in Title 24, Figs 11B-26A & 11B-26B or DOJ Stds. Fig.

Min. 18" Title 24 § 1115B.7.1.3. DOJ Stds. § 4.17.3
& Fig. 30

16" to 19"

Grab bars.

33" unless tank impedes, in which case max 36"
Title 24 § 1115B.8.1
33" to 36" DOJ Stds. §§ 4.16.4, 4.17.6, Figs. 29, 30

+/- 1" horizontally and 321/2" to 36-1/2" vertically

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C-11-00667-WHA)

Settlement Agreement - Ex. B

Page 3 of 4

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page118 of 158

Element Toilet paper dispenser distance from
rear wall. Minimum distance from water closet
to front of stall (end door) Minimum distance from water closet
to front of stall (side door) Toilet Paper dispenser height Maximum distance from rear wall to dispensing point of toilet paper
dispenser.
Height of water closet seat
Minimum knee clearance under lavatory
Minimum vertical clearance under the bottom edge of lavatory
Minimum vertical clearance under that lavatory at a point eight inches
back from the front edge
Minimum width of toilet stall.
Minimum distance from water closet to far wall or fixture under the Title
24.
Height of urinal rim
Minimum vertical clearance at drain pipe

Applicable Standard Max 36"
DOJ Stds. Fig. 30(d) Min. 48"
Title 24 § 1115B.7.1.3
Min. 60" Title 24 § 1115B.7.1.3 ANSI A117.1; 2004 ADAAG
Max 36" DOJ Stds. Fig. 30(d)
17" to 19" Title 24 § 1115B.2.1.1. DOJ Stds. § 4.17.3 & Fig 30.
Min. 30" wide and 17" deep Title 24 § 1115B.2.1.2.1
Min. 29" Title 24 § 1115B.2.1.2.1 DOJ Stds. § 4.19.2 & Fig. 31
Min. 27" Title 24 § 1115B.2.1.2.1. DOJ Stds. § 4.19.2 & Fig. 31
Min. 60" Title 24 § 1115B.7.1.3 DOJ Stds. § 4.17.3 & Fig 30
Min. 32" to wall Min. 28" to fixture Title 24 § 1115B.7.1.3
Max 17" Title 24 § 1115B.2.1.1.1.
DOJ Stds. § 4.18.2 Min. 9"
DOJ Stds. § 4.19.2; Fig. 31

Acceptable Measurement Max 37" Min. 47" Min. 59" Min. 15½" Max 37"
17" to 19-1/2" Min. 29" wide Min. 16" deep
26-1/2"
Min. 26-1/2"
Min. 58"
Min. 31"
Max 18" Min. 8½"

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp. (C-11-00667-WHA)

Settlement Agreement - Ex. B

Page 4 of 4

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page119 of 158
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT C

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page120 of 158

Burger King CA Tri-Annual Accessibility Checklist
Version 2.1 (March 5, 2010)
Table of Contents
Cover Sheet and Instructions Pages 1-4 Burger King CA Tri-Annual Checklist
Appendix
A-1 Glossary of Terms A-2 Door Diagrams A-3 Parking Form
Phase 1. Preparation
1 Review these instructions, the Checklist and the Appendix material to remind yourself of the process, concepts and format of the Burger King CA Tri-Annual Accessibility Checklist. Remember that "Yes" answers imply compliance and "No" answers mean there is or may be a problem.
2 Gather the following tools:
□ The Burger King CA Tri-Annual Accessibility Checklist □ Digital camera with sufficient storage for at least 50 (1 megapixel minimum quality) photos per store □ Tape measure (12' - 25' recommended) □ 24 inch long digital Level (e.g. SMARTTOOLTM) □ Pressure gauge □ Clip board, note book or file systems for extra pages of the Burger King CA Tri-Annual Accessibility Checklist □ Pencil with eraser and black pen (erasable type recommended)

Phase 2. Walk Through - During the walk through the surveyor will: 1 Write the store number on the back of a page of paper and take a picture of it to start your series for that store. Take overall photos of the facility and all elements. Include a shot from across each street looking at the store. Take photos of parking areas, each side of the building exterior, paths of travel, entrances and of the building interior. 2 Answer questions by checking-off appropriate boxes and recording measurements for every "No" answer" in pencil. ("No" indicates that there is or might be a problem.) N/A should be used when there is no such element.
3 Take measurements with a tape measure and record them to the closest 1/4 inch.
4 Take photos of all surveyed items, including all items marked in the "No" column and of any unusual or uncertain conditions. For any condition marked "No" ensure that at least one photo shows the measuring device that demonstrates the problem that led you to check "No." For example, if there is an obstruction in the door maneuvering cleanance, at least one photograph should show the tape measure that demonstrates the dimension of the clearance. One photo may show more than one issue or area. It is better to take too many rather than too few photographs.

5 If you need to record more information or make a comment make a check mark in the Measurement or Comment box and write a Comment in the blank area on the page, use a reference number to indicate the question that the comment goes with.
6 (Optional) Make sketches of the plan view of the Men’s and Women’s restrooms showing overall dimensions, centerlines of fixtures and locations of walls and doors.

Phase 3. Report - As soon as possible after completing the walk through, finalize the report as follows: 1 Review the Checklist completing it in black ink pen to assure that:
□ The store name, surveyor's name and date is written at the top of each page and page numbers of any Appendix pages. □ Each question is answered and all measurements are provided. □ Photograph numbers are included with each “No” question.

□ Photos are reoriented, if necessary, and sequentially numbered by Store # (XXXX) and Photo # (NNN). (e.g.. XXXXX-NNN.jpg) □ All information, including comments, is legible and coherent. □ Each comment is numbered with the question to which it refers.

2

Make a copy for your records for reference in answering future questions.

3 Submit the original to: _____________________________________.

Version 2.1 © 2010 Printed 5/30/2012 Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp., Settlement Agreement Ex. C

Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

Page 1

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page121 of 158

Yes
1
1.01 1.02
1.03

BK CA TRi-Annual Accessibility Checklist

Store # _____________ Surveyor _________________________
Date_______________

No

N/A

Measurement or Comment

Photos for this sheet ____________________

Accessible Parking

Is a Van Accessible parking space with an 8 feet wide minimum access aisle and a "Van

Accessible" sign provided?

Is a second accessible parking space provided for lots with 26 to 50 total parking spaces?

Are the required number of accessible parking spaces provided for lots with more than 50 total parking spaces? [See the Parking Numbers Table on the A-3 Parking Form.]

1.04

Is every accessible parking space 9 feet wide minimum?

Besides the access aisle in item 1.01, is every other access aisle 5 feet wide minimum?
1.05

Are all parking spaces and access aisles sloped 2% maximum in any direction?

1.06

[Complete an A-3 Parking Form only if the slopes are more than 2%.]

Is a vertical sign with the International Symbol of Accessibility posted at each space 80

1.07

inches high minimum if mounted on a pole, or 60 inches high minimum if mounted on a wall

as measured from the driving surface to the bottom of the sign?

Is there a 48 inches wide minimum unobstructed accessible route from each accessible

1.08

parking space to an accessible entrance that is unobstructed by curbs, vehicle overhangs,

protruding objects or any other barriers?

Is CA Tow-Away enforcement signage completed with required fill-in information and provided

1.09

at each entrance to the parking lot or adjacent to and visible from each accessible parking

compartment or space?

2

Exterior Accessible Routes

Is there a 48 inches wide minimum unobstructed accessible route from the public sidewalk

2.01

or right of way to an accessible entrance that is unobstructed by curbs, vehicle overhangs,

trash containers, protruding objects or any other barriers?

Are detectable warnings (truncated domes) provided at all edges between pedestrian and

2.02

vehicular ways that have flush transitions not otherwise separated by a curb (including any

non-required curb ramps )?

Are all pedestrian paths free of objects protruding more than 4 inches horizontally, between

2.03

27 and 80 inches high?

2.04

Is there 80 inches high minimum head clearance along all pedestrian paths?

Write any Comments with reference #'s below

Version 2.1 © 2010 Printed 5/30/2012 Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp., Settlement Agreement Ex. C

Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

page 2

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page122 of 158

BK CA TRi-Annual Accessibility Checklist

Store # _____________ Surveyor _________________________
Date_______________

Yes
3
3.01
3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06
4
4.01
5
5.01
6
6.01
6.02
7
7.01
7.02
8
8.01 8.02 8.03
9
9.01 9.02 9.03
9.04

No

N/A

Measurement or Comment

Photos for this sheet ____________________

Entry Doors

Is there directional signage to an accessible entry door at each non-accessible entry door?

Does Each Accessible Entry Door have: A sign with the International Symbol of Accessibility (ISA)?
Opening hardware that can be operated with 5 lbs of force maximum?

A threshold with an overall height of 1/2 inch maximum? A 1:2 maximum beveled edge if the threshold is higher than 1/4 inch?

Height Height

Maneuvering spaces on both sides of the door unobstructed by trash containers and in compliance with the Door Diagrams?
Queuing Aisle
Is 36 inches miniumn clear width and maneuvering space for turns provided for all portions of the queuing aisle. (see diagrams in Glossary of Terms)

Depth Depth

Service Counter
Is at least one of each self service point of purchase item, including displays and leaflets located 46 inches maximum AFF and 24 inches max back from the front of the counter? [If "No" record the height and distance from clear floor space.]
Self Service Drinks Counter
Is at least one of each type of drink dispenser located 46 inches maximum AFFand 24 inches max back from the front of the counter? [If "No" record the height and distance from clear floor space.] Is the control of every dispenser easy to operate with a closed fist ?

Height

Depth

Customer Convenience (Ketchup & Condiments) Counter
Is at least one of each type of container, utensil or condiment located 46 inches maximum AFFand 24 inches max back from the front of the counter? [If "No" record the height and distance from clear floor space.]
Is the control of every dispenser easy to operate with a closed fist ?

Interior Accessible Routes
Is there an unobstructed accessible route from an accessible entrance to at least one of each type of customer use element? Are all pedestrian paths free of objects protruding more than 4 inches horizontally, between 27 and 80 inches high? Is there 80 inches high minimum head clearance along all pedestrian paths?

Accessible Seating and Tables

Total # of Seats in the Restaurant =

Is 5% (rounded up) of the seating positions accessible?

Are accessible seating positions provided in each distinct seating area?

Is there an accessible route to every accessible seating position?

Does each accessible table comply with the Knee and Toe Clearance Diagram? (Note: the width of the table surface is not regulated, just the clear floor space under the table.)

Write any Comments with reference #'s below

Version 2.1 © 2010 Printed 5/30/2012 Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp., Settlement Agreement Ex. C

Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

page 3

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page123 of 158

Women
10 Yes No N/A
10.01
10.02 10.03 10.04 10.05
10.06
10.07

Men Yes No N/A

Measurement or Comment

BK CA Tri-Annual Accessibility Checklist

Store # _____________ Surveyor _________________________
Date_______________

Restrooms

Photos for Women's _______________ Photos for Men's ____________________

Is high contrast tactile signage with braille provided on the wall beside the latch jamb of the door

with the baseline of the text between 48 inches and 60 inches AFF?

Is there a 12 inches (on a side) raised triangle (men's), circle (women's) or triangle/circle

(unisex) centered at a height of 60" on the face of the door?

Is all door hardware operable with a closed fist ?

Is the force required to open all restroom doors to 90 degrees, 5 pounds maximum?

Is the closing speed of all restroom doors 3 seconds minimum as measured from an open

position of 70 degrees to a point 3 inches from the latch?

Are the maneuvering spaces on both sides of all restroom entry doors free of fixtures, trash

containers or other barriers and in compliance with the A-2 Door Diagrams?

[Photograph the maneuvering spaces on both sides of all doors.]

Are the lavatory pipes insulated or otherwise protected from contact?

10.08

Is the faucet hardware at the accessible lavatory automatic or operable with a closed fist ? If automatic, does it remain open at least 10 seconds? If operable with a closed fist , does it require 5 pounds maximum of force to operate?

10.09 10.10

Does the front edge of the accessible lavatory provide 27 inches AFF minimum knee and toe clearance ? Is the bottom reflecting edge of the mirror located 40 inches maximum AFF?

10.11

Does the toilet stall door provide a clear opening width of 32 inches minimum?

10.12

Are the maneuvering spaces on both sides of accessible toilet compartment doors unobstructed by trash containers, fixtures or other barriers, and in compliance with the A-2 Door Diagrams?

10.13 10.14 10.15 10.16
10.17

Is door hardware that is operable with a closed fist available on both sides of the accessible stall door? Is the accessible toilet compartment door self-closing? Is the centerline of the toilet 18 inches from the near wall? Is top of the toilet seat between 17 inches and 19 inches AFF? Is a horizontal sidewall grab bar provided that is 1-1/4 to 1-1/2 inches in diameter, 42 inches long minimum, extending 54 inches minimum from the rear wall, centered 33 inches above the floor and with no obstructions within 12 inches above or 1-1/2 inches below the bar?

10.18
10.19 10.20 10.21 10.22 10.23 10.24 10.25

Is a horizontal rear wall grab bar provided that is 1-1/4 to 1-1/25 inches in diameter, 36 inches long minimum, extending 12 inches minimum from the toilet centerline towards the near side wall, centered 33 inches (36 inches maximum at tank type toilets) above the floor and with no obstructions within 12 inches above or 1-1/2 inches below the bar? Is the front most edge of the toilet paper dispenser opening (or roll if no dispenser opening is present) located 36 inches maximum from the rear wall and also 12 inches maximum from the front edge of the toilet seat? Is the toilet paper dispenser opening located at least 15 inches above the floor. Is the toilet flush control located on the open side of the toilet at 44 inches maximum AFF and operable with 5 pounds maximum of force to operate? Is at least one of each dispenser in the accessible stall on an accessible route with a 30 inches by 48 inches minimum clear floor space, 40" AFF maximum and operable with a closed fist? Is there a coat hook in the accessible stall that is on an accessible route with a 30 inches by 48 inches minimum clear floor space and within the accessible reach range? Is the floor of the accessible stall clear of free standing waste baskets, furniture or decorations? Is at least one of each dispenser in the restroom on an accessible route with a 30 inches by 48 inches minimum clear floor space , 40" AFF maximum and operable with a closed fist ?

10.26 Write any Comments with reference #'s below

Is the urinal's flush control automatic or 44 inches maximum AFF and operable with 5 pounds maximum force to operate?

Version 2.1 © 2010 Printed 5/30/2012 Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp., Settlement Agreement Ex. C

Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

page 4

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page124 of 158

Appendix
A-1 Glossary

BK CA Tri-Annual Accessibility Checklist

Glossary of Terms (Defined terms are italicized in the form.)

Term

Definition

AFF Access Aisle Accessible Route
Clear Floor Space Closed Fist Rule Closer

(A)bove (F)inished (F)loor. The clear ground area next to an accessible parking space that provides room for a driver or passenger with a disability to enter and exit from the side of their vehicle. Van accessible access aisles are at least 8' wide. All other access aisles are at least 5' wide. One access aisle can be shared between two accessible parking spaces if cars can pull in forward and back into the parking spaces allowing the driver to position either the rider or driver next to the access aisle. An accessible route is required to connect all accessible spaces or features on the site. Continuity of the accessible route is critical though the route is not required to be the shortest route. It must start at the property line, public sidewalk or the public right-of-way and lead to and accessible entry door. Accessible routes also connect the entry with the accessible parking and every feature used by customers that is intended to be accessible. Accessible routes from parking and public rights of way may overlap each other. An accessible route must meet three criteria. 1) It must be a minimum of 36" wide which accommodates a person who uses a wheelchair. The path can be narrowed at points to a minimum of 32" for a maximum distance of 24" such as when it goes through a doorway or past a column. 2) It must have no abrupt vertical changes in level greater than 1/ 4" high, nor horizontal gaps greater than 1/ 2" wide. If there are vertical breaks in the path, they must have a curb ramp or a ramp. 3) It must have a running slope not greater than 1: 20 (5%) and a cross slope not greater than 1: 50 (2%). Note: An obstruction to an accessible route may or may not also be a protruding object .
Accessible Route 30" wide X 48" long, level and unobstructed floor or ground surface that allows wheelchairs to approach and use equipment and features . People with arthritis, hand injuries or amputations, or high spinal cord injuries may have great difficulty making a tight grip, pinching, twisting their wrist or making fine finger movements. If a device can be operated by a hand formed into a loosely clenched fist (or loose fingered flail hand) and with little force (5 lbs. or less), then most people with limited hand dexterity should be able to operate it. Use the closed fist rule when surveying items such as door hardware and faucets. A mechanical device that automatically closes a door, closers must require no more than 5 pounds to operate and must take at least 3 seconds to close the door.

Cross Slope

The slope that is perpendicular to the direction of travel along a circulation route.

Curb ramp v. ramp A short ramp without handrails, built into or up to a sidewalk or raised apron and that provides a sloped transition usually between a driving surface and a walkway surface. A curb ramp is required wherever an accessible route crosses a curb or other level change. A ramp is a walking surface which has a running slope greater than 1:20 (5%).

Detectable

An object that is at or below a height of 27" that can be detected by a person using a long white cane. See Protruding Objects below.

Elements

Detectable warningsTruncated domes that visually contrast with the color of the pavement on which they are positioned. Detectable warnings take the place

of curbs to warn people with visual impairments of the edge between pedestrian and vehicular paths. visually impaired people pay

attention to detectable warnings to tell them if they are in pedestrian areas or dangerous vehicular areas. Parking spaces, access aisles

and cross walks are considered vehicular areas. Truncated domes were reserved for several years in the 1990's by the US Department

of Justice while they conducted research about the effectiveness of the material. They were reinstated in the early 2000's and are

required on all curb ramps and at flush edges between pedestrian and vehicular areas. Note: Some States and municipalities have

differing criteria.

Highest Operating The lowest operable part of the highest element or control a person much reach in order to complete the functions of the task. (i.e. on/off

Element/Highest handle, push to start button, dispenser controls, coin slot on pay telephones, pump on air pots, hot water or ice dispensers etc.) When

Operable Part

measuring the height of large buttons, measure to the lowest point where the button will activate the device.

Horizontal Gaps International Symbol of Accessibility (ISA)

All accessible routes must be free of horizontal gaps wider than 1/2" (i.e. cracks in walks, grates, grills etc.). The international 'wheelchair' symbol designating accessibility.

Knee and Toe Clearance

The shape of the area under tables, lavatories and counters that allows wheelchair users to closely approach and use the element.

Version 2.1 © 2010 Printed 5/30/2012 Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp., Settlement Agreement Ex. C

Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

page 5

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page125 of 158

Appendix
A-1 Glossary

BK CA Tri-Annual Accessibility Checklist

Term Maneuvering Space & Turns

Definition 90 degree turns can be made from a 36" wide aisle into another 36" wide aisle.
180 degree turns can be made from a 42" wide aisle to a 42" wide aisle through a 48" deep turning space. 180 degree turns can also be made from a 36" wide aisle to another 36" wide aisle through a 60" deep turning space.
A 5' diameter space will allow any type of turn of up to 360 degrees. A 360 degree “T” turn can be made at the intersection of two 36" wide aisles.

5' Diameter Turning space Protruding Objects All circulation paths, including accessible routes , must have no protruding or overhanging objects
(such as signs, promotion displays or hanging planters) that might be a hazard to a person who is visually impaired. Any object that protrudes into the path more than 4" must either be above 80" (head height) or have a portion that is at or below 27" where it can be detected by a person using a long white cane. Queuing lines without intermediate railings (at or below 27") are potential protruding objects. Note: Protruding Objects do not necessarily obstruct an accessible route.

T-turn

Public Right of Way The streets and sidewalks owned by the local municipality that border the site.

Reach Range

Many people who are of short stature or who use wheelchairs can only reach

up to about 48" AFF. Some others who use a wheelchair can reach up to 54"

AFF from the side if there is a 30" deep by 48" wide clear floor space

alongside and no more than 10" horizontally from the object. Remember, the

side reach works only as long as there is nothing higher than 34" between the

wheelchair and the object.

Obstructed Side Reach Interpolation Table

Depth - Height

Depth - Height

Depth - Height

10" 54"

15" 51"

20" 48-1/2"

11" 53-1/2"

16" 50-1/2"

21" 47-1/2"

12" 53"

17" 50"

22" 47

13" 52 1/2"

18" 49 1/2"

23" 46-1/2"

14" 51 - 1/2"

19 49"

24" 46"

Protruding Objects

Running Slope Site T-turn Tactile Signage
Threshold
Unisex Restroom Van Accessible

Range of Reach The slope that is parallel to the direction of travel. The land on which the restaurant is located. See Maneuvering Space and Turns above Signs which have letters or characters that are raised above the surface so that they can be read by touch by people with limited vision. Tactile signs are also required to have raised Braille dots. Tactile signs should be located on the wall beside the latch jamb of a doorway and positioned so that the baseline of the highest characters is no more than 60" AFF and the baseline of the lowest characters on the sign is no less than 48" AFF. Note: It doesn't hurt to have a compliant sign on the wall and another sign on the face of the restroom door.
The horizontal strip on the floor at the bottom of a door frame that helps weatherproof the doorway. Thresholds can have an abrupt portion that is no higher than 1/4" and an overall height of no more than 1/2" with anything over 1/4" beveled at 1:2. An easy way to measure a curb ramp is to place a slope meter (or other straight edge) on top of the threshold so that it extends over the floor on either side and measure the distance between the bottom of the slope meter and the floor.
A toilet room intended for private use by either sex, one person at a time.
An accessible parking space that has an 8' wide access aisle to accommodate a van with a side lift.

Version 2.1 © 2010 Printed 5/30/2012 Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp., Settlement Agreement Ex. C

Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

page 6

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page126 of 158

Appendix
A-2 Door Diagrams

BK CA Tri-Annual Accessibility Checklist

CA Fig 11B-26

Version 2.1 © 2010 Printed 5/30/2012 Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp., Settlement Agreement Ex. C

Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page127 of 158

Appendix

BK CA Tri-Annual Accessibility Checklist Store # _____________

Surveyor _________________________

A-3 Parking Form

Date_______________

Parking Numbers Table 2004 ADAAG Table 208.2 & 1991 ADAAG 4.1.2(5)

Total Number of Parking Minimum Number of

Spaces Provided in

Required Accessible

Parking Facility

Parking Spaces

1 to 25

1

26 to 50

2

51 to 75

3

76 to 100

4

101 to 150

5

151 to 200

6

201 to 300

7

301 to 400

8

401 to 500

9

501 to 1000

2 percent of total

1001 and over

20, plus 1 for each 100, or

fraction thereof, over 1000

Photos for this sheet ___________
For each Accessible Parking Space and Access Aisle
1) Identify the location and indicate if it is a parking space or an access aisle.
2) Use a 24" long digital level to take a measurement in each direction at each of the locations shown in the diagrams.
3) Circle any measurement over 5%.

location:

location:

Version 2.1 © 2010

Printed 5/30/2012

Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp., Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.

Settlement Agreement Ex. C

www.UniversalDesign.com

page _________

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page128 of 158
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT D

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page129 of 158

Burger King 2004 ADAAG Checklist for California

Version 2.1 March 5, 2010

Store #

Date of Survey

Store Address, City & Zip

Surveyor Name

Section
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11.50 12 12.10 13 14 15 16 16.10 16.24 16.33 16.43 16.49 16.73 17 17.10 17.24 17.33 17.43 17.,67

Table of Contents
Cover Sheet - Instructions - Table of Contents Picture Menus Accessible Parking Exterior Accessible Routes Accessible Curb Ramps Accessible Ramps Telephones Entry/Exit Doors Queuing Aisle Service Counter Self Service Condiments and Drinks Counter Interior Accessible Seating and Tables
Exterior Accessible Seating and Tables Interior Accessible Routes and Elements
Protruding Objects Interior Stairs Play Areas Games/Kiosks/Vending Men's or Unisex Restroom
Entry Door Lavatory Dispensers/Accessories Urinal Toilet Ambulatory Compartment Women's or 2nd Unisex Restroom Entry Door Lavatory Dispensers/Accessories Toilet Ambulatory Compartment

copyright 2010

Store # _______________ 2004 ADAAG Checklist Version 2.1 -- 3/5/09 Ex. D

Privileged & Confidential Attorney Work Product Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

Page 1 of 24

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page130 of 158

Instructions for Completing the Burger King 2004 ADAAG Checklist for California

Phase 1. Preparation

1

Review these instructions, the Checklist and the Appendix material to remind yourself of the process,

concepts and format of the Checklist. Remember that Yes answers imply compliance and No answers

mean there is or may be a problem.

2

Gather the following tools:

□ The Burger King 2004 ADAAG Checklist for California

□ Digital camera with sufficient storage for at least 50 (1 megapixel minimum quality) photos per store

□ Tape measure ( 12' - 25' recommended)

□ 24 inch long digital Level (e.g. SMARTTOOLTM)

□ Pressure gauge

□ Clip board, note book or file systems for extra pages of the Checklist

□ Pencil with eraser and black pen (erasable type recommended)

Phase 2. Walk Walk Through - During the walk through the surveyor will:

1

Write the store number on the back of a page of paper and take a picture of it to start your series for that

store. Take overall photos of the facility and all elements. Include a shot from across each street looking

at the store. Take photos of parking areas, each side of the building exterior, paths of travel, entrances

2

Answer questions by checking-off appropriate boxes and recording measurements for every "No"

answer" in pencil. (No indicates that there is or might be a problem.) N/A should be used when there

3

iTake meahsulrementts with a tape measure and record them to the closest 1/4 inch.

4

Take photos of all surveyed items, including all items marked in the "No" column and of any unusual or

uncertain conditions. For any condition marked "no" ensure that at least one photo shows the measuring device that demonstrates the problem that led you to check "no." For example, if there is an obstruction in the door maneuvering cleanance, at least one photograph should show the tape measure that

demonstrates the dimension of the clearance. One photo may show more than one issue or area. It is

5

If you need to record more information or make a comment make a check mark in the Measurement or

Comment box and write a Comment in the blank area on the page, use a reference number to indicate

6

t(hOptionalt)i Mathketstkhetches of tht e plan viitehw of the Men’s and Women’s restrooms showing overall

dimensions, centerlines of fixtures and locations of walls and doors.

Phase 3. Report - As soon as possible after completing the walk through, finalize the report as follows:

1

Review the Checklist completing it in black ink pen to assure that:

□ The store name, surveyor's name and date is written at the top of each page and page numbers of any

□ Appendix pages. Each question is answered and all measurements are provided.

□ Photograph numbers are included with each “No” question.

□ Photos are reoriented, if necessary, and sequentially numbered by Store # (XXXX) and Photo # (NNN). (e.g.. XXXXX-NNN.jpg)
□ All information, including comments, is legible and coherent. □ Each comment is numbered with the question to which it refers.

2

Make a copy for your records for reference in answering future questions.

3

Submit the original to: _____________________________________.

Store # _______________ 2004 ADAAG Checklist Version 2.1 -- 3/5/09 Ex. D

Privileged & Confidential Attorney Work Product Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

Page 2 of 24

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page131 of 158

Line #

Burger King 2004 ADAAG Checklist for California Version 2.1 (March 5, 2010)
Yes No N/A Measurement or Photo # Comment Number

Question

1.00

Picture Menus

1.01

Is signage provided at the drive up menu/order intercom indicating pictures menus are available

upon request at the pick-up window?

1.02

Are picture menus available at the window and order counter?

2.00

Accessible Parking

2.01

Are all accessible parking spaces on the shortest accessible route (that is 48 inches wide

minimum and unobstructed by curbs, vehicle overhangs, protruding objects or any other barriers)

to an accessible entrance?

2.02

Is a Van Accessible parking space with an 8' wide minimum access aisle provided?

2.03

Do all Van spaces, their access aisles, and vehicular routes serving them have 98 inches of

vertical clearance?

2.04

Is the van accessible parking space access aisle located on the side opposite the driver's side

when the vehicle is going forward into the parking space?

2.05

Is a second accessible parking space provided for lots with 26 to 50 total parking spaces?

2.06

Are the required number of accessible parking spaces provided for lots with more than 50 total

parking spaces?

2.07

Is every accessible parking space at least 9' wide?

2.08

Is every non-van accessible access aisle at least 5' wide?

2.09

Is the length of each parking space 18 feet minimum?

2.10

Does the length of each access aisle extend the length of the accessible parking space it

serves?

2.11

Do all the accessible parking spaces have slopes of 2% or less in any direction?

2.12

Do all the access aisles have slopes of 2% or less in any direction?

2.13

Are all access aisles free of encroaching ramps or curb ramps?

2.14

Are all accessible parking spaces free of encroaching ramps or curb ramps?

2.15

Is a 36 inches x 36 inches ISA symbol painted on the ground of the accessible parking space?

2.16

Do all accessible parking spaces have vertical signage?

2.17

Do all accessible parking spaces have a vertical sign with the words "Minimum Fine $250"?

2.18

Does each accessible van parking space have a vertical sign with the words "Van Accessible"

on it?

2.19

Is every accessible and van accessible parking sign 60 inches minimum (80 inches if pole

mounted) to the bottom of the sign at each space?

2.20

Is each sign 70 square inches or greater?

2.21

Is the access aisle border painted blue?

2.22

Are access aisles marked with hatched lines 36 inches maximum on center apart and in a

contrasting color to the parking surface?

2.23

Are the words "No Parking" painted on each access aisle?

2.24

Are all the "No Parking" notices painted with white letters no less than 12 inches high?

2.25

Is a curb or tire stop provided at each parking space to avoid narrowing a required accessible

route?

2.26

Are accessible vehicle occupants able to move to an accessible entrance without going behind

parked cars other than their own?

2.27

Is CA enforcement signage provided at each entrance to the parking lot or adjacent to and visible

from each accessible parking compartment or space?

2.28

Is the CA enforcement sign 17 inches x 22 inches or greater?

2.29

Is the size of the lettering on the CA enforcement sign 1 inch high minimum?

2.30

Does the CA enforcement sign have the appropriate information filled into the blanks?

BK 2004 ADAAG Checklist for California Version 2.1 - March 5, 2010 Ex. D

Privileged & Confidential Attorney Work Product Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

Page 3 of 18

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page132 of 158

Line #

Yes

No N/A

Measurement or Number

Photo #

Comment

Question

3.00

Exterior Accessible Routes

3.01

At stairs or other non-accessible paths, where the accessible route diverges from the regular

circulation path is there directional signage, displaying the ISA, indicating the direction to the

accessible entrances?

3.02

Is the upper approach and each tread of each stair marked by a 2" wide equally slip resistant

strip of clearly contrasting color parallel to and no more than 1" from the nose of the step or

landing?

3.03

Are all crosswalks designated with painted stripes or differentiated surface materials?

3.04

Are all required accessible routes free of abrupt changes in level greater than 1/4 inch in height?

3.05

Are all required accessible routes free of gaps greater than 1/2 inch wide?

Are all required accessible routes at least 48" wide?

3.06

Do all accessible routes have running slopes 5% or less? If no, complete ramp or curb ramp

sections as appropriate.

3.07

Do all accessible routes have cross slopes 2% or less?

3.08

Are all pedestrian paths free of objects protruding more than 4 inches (12 inches if post mounted

such as signage) horizontally, between 27 and 80 inches high?

3.09

Is there 80 inches high minimum head clearance along all pedestrian paths?

3.10

Do all post/pylon mounted signs located less then 80 inches AFF have rounded corners 1/8

inches minimum radius.

3.11

Is the edge between all pedestrian paths and vehicular ways identified by a change in level

(curbs) or truncated dome detectable warnings?

4.00

Accessible Curb Ramps

4.01

What is the reference on the site plan for this curb ramp? (CR-__)

4.02

Is there a smooth transition between the road and the curb ramps?

4.03

Is the slope of the adjoining gutters and road surface within 4 feet of the curb ramp 5% or less?

4.04

Is the curb ramp 48 inches wide minimum?

4.05

Is the curb ramp front to back slope 8.3% or less?

4.06

Is the cross slope on the curb ramp 2% or less?

4.07

Are all curb ramp flares sloped 10% or less?

4.08

Are detectable warnings (truncated domes) provided at the curb ramp?

4.09

Do detectable warnings on curb ramps contrast visually with the adjoining surfaces?

4.10

Is there a 12 inch wide grooved border provided around the level area of the top and sides of the

curb ramp?

4.11

Are the border grooves approxametly 3/4 inches on center?

4.12

Are there level landings (2% or less slope in any direction) 48 inches deep minimum, and at least

as wide as the clear width of the adjacent curb ramp, at the top of each curb ramp? OR Does it

have flared sides that are sloped 8.3% or less?

4.13

Does the surface of each curb ramp and its flared sides have contrasting texture and contrasting

finish from that of the adjacent sidewalk?

BK 2004 ADAAG Checklist for California Version 2.1 - March 5, 2010 Ex. D

Privileged & Confidential Attorney Work Product Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

Page 4 of 18

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page133 of 158

Line #

Yes

No N/A

Measurement or Number

Photo #

Comment

Question

5.00

Ramps

5.01

What is the reference on the site plan for this ramp? (R-__)

5.02

If this portion of route has running slopes greater than 5% and a rise of more than 6 inches does

it have handrails on both sides?

5.03

Do all portions of the accessible ramp have running slopes 8.3% or less?

5.04

Are cross slopes 2% or less?

5.05

Is a 5 feet long by 5 feet wide minimum landing provided at the top of each ramped section?

5.06

Is an intermediate landing provided wherever the rise is more than 30 inches?

5.07

Is each intermediate landing at least 5 feet long?

5.08

If use of an intermediate landing requires a turn or change in direction, is a 5 feet wide x 6 feet

long minimum landing provided?

5.09

Is each bottom landing at least 6 feet in length?

5.10

Is the clear width of every ramped section at least 48 inches?

5.11

Are all landings at least as wide as the ramped sections leading to them?

5.12

Is edge protection provided along each side of every ramp section and every landing with a drop

off greater than 4 inches?

5.13

Are the handrails located 34 inches to 38 inches AFF, as measured to the top of the gripping

surface, along each side of each ramp section?

5.14

Are all the handrails 1-1/4 inches to 1-1/2 inches in diameter?

5.15

Does each handrail have a 12 inches minimum horizontal extension at the top and bottom of

each ramp section?

5.16

Are all landings sloped 2% or less?

6.00

Telephones

6.01

Is the public pay phone on a 48 inches wide accessible route with a 30 inches by 48 inches

minimum clear floor space?

6.02

Does at least one phone at this location have a volume control?

6.03

Is this phone marked by the volume control symbol?

6.04

Is highest operable part of the lowest phone (usually the coin slot centerline) 48 inches or less

AFF?

6.05

Is the handset cord at least 29" in length?

7.00

Entry/Exit Doors

7.01

Are the accessible entrances on an accessible route?

7.02

Are all entrances to the store accessible?

7.03

Is there directional signage indicating the location of the accessible entry door provided at each

non-accessible entry door?

7.04

What is the number of this door as shown on the site plan sketch on the cover sheet?

7.05

Is this an exit only door?

7.06

Is there a 48 inches wide minimum unobstructed accessible route from the public sidewalk or

right of way to this door (unobstructed by curbs, vehicle overhangs, protruding objects or any

other barriers)?

7.07

Does this door have an ISA decal?

7.08

Can all opening hardware be operated with a closed fist?

7.09

Is all door hardware centered between 34 inches and 44 inches AFF?

7.10

Is the door opening force for all leaves of this doorway no more than 5 lbf?

7.11

Is the door closing speed 5 seconds or more from 90 degrees to 12 degrees from the latch for all

leaves of this doorway?

7.12

Is the clear width of at least one single leaf 32 inches minimum?

7.13

Does the threshold have an overall height of 1/2 inch maximum?

7.14

Does the threshold have abrupt portions that are 1/4 inch high maximum?

7.15

Does the threshold have a 1:2 maximum bevel for any portion that is more than 1/4 inch high?

7.16

Is there a 10 inches high smooth panel or kick plate located on the base of the push side of all

leaves of the doorway?

7.17

Does the door have pull and push side maneuvering spaces that comply with the figure 11B -26?

Note different criteria for exterior door landings!

7.18

Are the required maneuvering spaces on each side of the door sloped 2% or less in all

directions?

7.19

Does each grade-level exterior exit door have tactile signage located on the latch side of the door

60 inches AFF or located on the face of the door if the door has a closer and no hold open

device?

7.20

Is there an 18 inches clear floor space centered on the sign?

BK 2004 ADAAG Checklist for California Version 2.1 - March 5, 2010 Ex. D

Privileged & Confidential Attorney Work Product Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

Page 5 of 18

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page134 of 158

Line #

Yes

No N/A

Measurement or Number

Photo #

Comment

Question

8.00 8.01
8.02 8.03 9.00 9.01 9.02 9.03 9.04 9.05
9.06
10.00 10.01
10.02
10.03 10.04 10.05 11.00 11.01 11.02

Queuing Aisle
Is there a 60 inches long by 60 inches wide minimum turning space at every turn in the path or if the path is at least 42 inches wide is the depth of the turn at least 48 inches? Is the narrowest clear width between the the barriers 36 inches minimum? Do queuing aisle separation barriers have detectable elements?
Service Counter
Is the height of the accessible order counter 34 inches maximum? Is the width of the accessible order counter 36 inches minimum? Is the height of the accessible pick-up counter 34 inches maximum? Is the width accessible pick-up counter 36 inches minimum? Is the credit card reader within reach range or on a cord long enough to reach to the lap of a customer who uses a wheelchair? Is any signature pad writing surface 34 inches AFF maximum or on a cord long enough to reach to the lap of a customer who uses a wheelchair?
Self Service Condiments and Drinks Counter
Is at least one of each type of container, utensil or condiment located within the 2004 ADAAG accessible reach range (within 48 inches maximum AFF or 46 inches maximum AFF for depths between 10 and 24 inches, with no reach depth beyond 24 inches)? Is at least one of each type of drink dispenser located within the 2004 ADAAG accessible reach range (within 48 inches maximum AFF or 46 inches maximum AFF for depths between 10 and 24 inches, with no reach depth beyond 24 inches)? Is the top of each self service counter or tray slide 34 inches maximum AFF? Is the self service counter space 36 inches long minimum? Is the control of every dispenser operable with a closed fist?
Interior Accessible Seating and Tables
What is the total number of seating positions inside the restaurant? Is 5% of the seating positions in each area accessible?

11.03

Is there a 36 inches wide minimum accessible route serving every accessible seating location?

11.04 11.05 11.06

Is the height of the table top between 28 inches and 34 inches maximum at every accessible seating position? Is 27 inches high by 30 inches wide by 19 inches deep knee clearance provided at every accessible seating position? If there is an audible public alarm in the building, is there a visual fire alarm in the dining area?

11.50 11.51 11.52
11.53

Exterior Accessible Seating and Tables
What is the total number of seating positions outside the restaurant? Is 5% of the seating positions in each area accessible?
Is there a 36 inches wide minimum accessible route serving every accessible seating location?

11.54 11.55 12.00 12.01
12.02

Is the height of the table top between 28 inches and 34 inches maximum at every accessible seating position? Is 27 inches high by 30 inches wide by 19 inches deep knee clearance provided at every accessible seating position?
Interior Accessible Routes
Is the upper approach and lower tread of each stair marked by a 2-inch wide equally slip resistant strip of clearly contrasting color parallel to and no more than 1 inch from the nose of the step or landing? Is there a 36 inches wide accessible route connecting the accessible entry/entrances with all accessible spaces and elements within the facility including serving and condiment counters, dining areas, restrooms and playgrounds if available?

12.03 12.04

Are all required accessible routes stable, firm and slip resistant? Are all required accessible routes free of abrupt changes in level greater than 1/4 inch in height?

12.05

Are all required accessible routes free of gaps greater than 1/2 inch wide?

12.06 12.07

Do all accessible routes have running slopes 5% or less? If no, complete section 5. Do all accessible routes have cross slopes 2% or less?

BK 2004 ADAAG Checklist for California Version 2.1 - March 5, 2010 Ex. D

Privileged & Confidential Attorney Work Product Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

Page 6 of 18

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page135 of 158

Line #

Yes

No N/A

Measurement or Number

Photo #

Comment

Question

12.10 12.11
12.12 13.00 13.01 13.02 13.03 13.04 13.05 13.06 13.07

Protruding Objects
Are all pedestrian paths free of objects protruding more than 4 inches (12 inches if post mounted such as signage) horizontally, between 27 and 80 inches high? Is there 80 inches high minimum head clearance along all pedestrian paths?
Interior Stairs
Are any stairs part of a means of egress? If no skip to next section. Are all the risers 4 inches minimum to 7 inches high maximum? Are all treads 11 inches minimum in depth? Are all risers closed? Are all nosings free of protrusions and are either flush, smooth or beveled? Is there visually contrasting striping provided on the upper and lower treads of the stairway? Is there striping 2 inches to 4 inches wide located 1 inch maximum from the nose of the step?

13.08 13.09 13.10
13.11
13.12
14.00 14.01 14.02 14.03
14.04
14.05
14.06
14.07

Does the striping extend the full width of the stair? Are handrails provided on both sides of the stairs? Are all handrails located 34 inches to 38 inches AFF as measured to the top of the gripping surface? Do all handrails have a clearance of 1-1/2 inches minimum between the gripping surface and adjacent surfaces? Do all handrails have 12 inches minimum extensions at both the top and the bottom of the stairway?
Play Areas
Is an accessible route provided from the restaurant to the playground area? Is a ground level accessible route provided to all accessible ground level components? Is there at least one accessible entrance and one accessible exit to the soft contained play structure (can be the same)? If there are 4 or more entrances to the soft contained play structure are there at least 2 entrances that are accessible? Is there a 60 inches minimum width accessible route from the entry of the play area to the each required accessible entry and exit of the soft contained play structure? Is the clear width of elevated accessible routes connecting elevated components a minimum 36 inches wide? Is there 80 inches high minimum head clearance along all accessible routes within the play area?

14.08 14.09 14.10 14.11 14.12 14.13 14.14 14.15 14.16
14.17 14.18 14.19 14.20
14.21

Do all accessible routes have compliant level change and edge transition conditions?
Is a 60" diameter or T-turn space provided at each accessible entry to the soft contained play structure? Is a transfer platform provided at each accessible entry and exit of the soft contained play strucutre? Are all transfer platforms at least 14 inches deep and 24 inches wide an located between 11 inches and 18 inches AFF. Is a 30 inches by 48 inches clear floor space centered along the long side of each transfer platform? Is at least one means of support (handrail or gripping surface) provided at every transfer platform? Within the play area, do all accessible routes connecting ground level play components and connecting elevated play components have slopes of 1:16 (6.2%) maximum? Is the rise of any such ramp no more than 12 inches high? Are handrails provided that are located 20 inches to 28 inches AFF, as measured to the top of the gripping surface, along each side of each ramp section? (Handrails are not required at ramps located within ground level use zones.) For handrails with a circular cross section, is the outside diameter 0.95 inches minimum and 1.55 inches maximum? For handrails with a non-circular cross section, is an equivalent gripping surface provided? Has the manufacturer provided proof of ADA compliance for all traditional non-contained composite structures and any free-standing play equipment? Has documentation been supplied that indicates that the ground surface complies with the recommendations of ASTM F1951? *Note: The only loose fill surfacing material that is considered to be accessible by the Department of Justice is engineered wood fiber and only when it is maintained.
Has documentation been supplied that indicates that the accessible route falls within the use zone of the playground equipment complies with the impact attenuation criteria as outlined in the ASTM F1292 Standard for Impact Attenuating Surfacing Material for Under Playground Equipment?

BK 2004 ADAAG Checklist for California Version 2.1 - March 5, 2010 Ex. D

Privileged & Confidential Attorney Work Product Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

Page 7 of 18

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page136 of 158

Line #

Yes

No N/A

Measurement or Number

Photo #

Comment

Question

15.00 15.01
15.02

Games / Kiosk / Vending
Are all self service kiosks, vending machines or free standing game units on an accessible route with a 30 inches by 48 inches minimum clear floor space? Are all controls and operating elements located within 48 inches maximum AFF or 46 inches maximum AFF for depths between 10 and 24 inches, with no reach depth beyond 24 inches?

15.03
16.00 16.01 16.02

Are all controls or operating elements operable with a closed fist or flail hand with 5 lbs or less of force?
Men's or Unisex Restroom
Is this a unisex restroom? Is the centerline of the restroom signage located 60 inches AFF on the strike side of the door?

16.03 16.04 16.05 16.06 16.07 16.08 16.09

Is there an 18 inches clear floor space centered on the sign?
Does the sign have tactile characters that are raised at least 1/32"?
Is the character height of the tactile characters between 5/8 inches and 2 inches?
Does the sign have braille?
Do the non-glare characters on the sign visually contrast with a non-glare background?
Is there a 12 inches (on a side) raised triangle (men's) or triangle/circle (unisex) located 60 inches AFF on the face of the door? Are floor surfaces sloped less than 2% in all directions with no abrupt change in level greater than 1/4 inch high and no gaps greater than 1/2 inch wide.

16.10 16.11 16.12 16.13 16.14
16.15 16.16 16.17 16.18
16.19
16.20
16.21
16.22
16.23

Men's Entry Door
Can all opening hardware be operated with a closed fist? Is all door hardware centered between 34 inches and 44 inches AFF? Is the door opening force for all accessible interior and exterior doors no more than 5 lbf? Is the door closing speed 5 seconds or more from 90 degrees to 12 degrees from the latch?
Is the clear width of each door 32 inches minimum? Does each threshold have an overall height of 1/2 inch maximum? Does each threshold have a 1/4 inch abrupt height maximum? Does each threshold have a 1:2 maximum bevel between 1/4 inch abrupt and 1/2 inch overall?
Is there a 10 inches high smooth panel or kick plate located on the base of the push side of all the doors? Does each door have pull and push side maneuvering spaces that comply with the figure 11B 26? Is the required maneuvering space on each side of the door sloped 2% or less?
Is there a 60 inches diameter or a T-Turn turning space provided in the restroom? Other than the door to the accessible water closet compartment, a door, in any position, may encroach into this space by not more than 12 inches. Are the clear floor spaces for all required accessible fixtures free of over swinging doors (i.e. entry door or compartment doors)?

BK 2004 ADAAG Checklist for California Version 2.1 - March 5, 2010 Ex. D

Privileged & Confidential Attorney Work Product Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

Page 8 of 18

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page137 of 158

Line #

Yes

No N/A

Measurement or Number

Photo #

Comment

Question

16.24 16.25

Men's Lavatory
Is the top of the accessible lavatory 28 inches to 34 inches high?

16.26
16.27
16.28 16.29
16.30 16.31 16.32 16.33 16.34

Is a 27 inches high by 30 inches wide by 8 inches deep minimum knee clearance provided under the lavatory?
Is a 9 inches high by 30 inches wide by 17 inches deep minimum toe clearance provided under the lavatory?
Are all the accessible lavatory pipes insulated or otherwise protected from contact?
Is the faucet hardware at the accessible lavatory automatic or operable with a closed fist? If automatic, does it remain open at least 10 seconds? If operable with a closed fist, does it require at most 5 pounds of force to operate? Is a mirror provided with the bottom reflecting edge located 40 inches high maximum?
Is an accessible lavatory located outside a water closet compartment? Is the accessible lavatory centered at least 18 inches from the nearest side wall or partition?
Dispensers / Accessories
If there is a customer use light switch, is the top of the light switch outlet box 48 inches high maximum with a 30 inches by 48 inches minimum clear floor space?

16.35
16.36 16.37
16.38 16.39 16.40
16.41 16.42 16.43 16.44 16.45 16.46 16.47 16.48

Is at least one of each type of dispenser in the restroom on an accessible route with a 30 inches by 48 inches minimum clear floor space?
Is at least one of each type of dispenser mounted with controls 40 inches maximum AFF?
Is the diaper changing station on an accessible route with an accessible clear floor space?
Is the diaper changing station pull down handle and all other operable controls located 40 inches high maximum? Is the diaper changing station surface (when open) 28 inches to 34 inches high maximum?
Does the diaper changing station surface (when open) provide accessible knee clearance?
Are accessible dispensers operable without pinching, grasping or twisting of the wrist and require 5 lbf or less to operate? If there is an audible public alarm in the building, is there a visual fire alarm in the restroom?
Urinal
How many urinals are provided? Is the lip of one urinal 17 inches high maximum? Is there a clear floor space 48 inches long and 30 inches wide minimum (36 inches wide minimum if in an alcove over 24 inches deep) at that urinal? Does the lip of that urinal extend 14 inches to 17 inches from the rear wall? Is the urinal's flush control automatic or 44 inches high maximum and operable with no more than 5 lbf of pressure?

BK 2004 ADAAG Checklist for California Version 2.1 - March 5, 2010 Ex. D

Privileged & Confidential Attorney Work Product Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

Page 9 of 18

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page138 of 158

Line #

Yes

No N/A

Measurement or Number

Photo #

Comment

Question

16.49 16.50

Men's Toilet
Is a clear floor space provided at a toilet that is 60 inches wide minimum (and providing at least 32 inches of clear width between the open side of the water closet and wall or partition) and extending at least 48 inches minimum clear in front of water closet for an end-opening door?

16.51

Is a clear floor space provided at a toilet that is 60 inches wide minimum (and providing at least 32 inches of clear width between the open side of the water closet and wall or partition) and extending at least 60 inches minimum clear in front of water closet for an side-opening door?

16.52 16.53

Is there an unobstructed route 44 inches wide leading through the restroom to the accessible stall.
Is the toilet compartment door self-closing, provide a clear opening width of 32 inches minimum, and located within 4 inches of the compartment corner diagonally opposite the toilet?

16.54

If door is located in the side of the compartment does it provide a net clear width of 34 inches?

16.55

If the accessible compartment door is out-swinging, are the exterior maneuvering spaces compliant with figure 11B-26? (The space immediately outside the compartment door must be at least 48 inches measured perpendicular to the compartment door in its closed position.)

16.56 16.57 16.58 16.59 16.60
16.61 16.62 16.63 16.64 16.65 16.66
16.67
16.68
16.69 16.70 16.71

Is all accessible compartment door hardware operable with a closed fist?
Is the inside and outside of the accessible compartment door equipped with a loop or U-shaped handle located near the latch? Is all door hardware centered between 34 inches and 44 inches AFF? If the toilet compartment has a side-opening door, is a minimum 60 inches wide and 60 inches deep clear floor space provided in front of the water closet? If 9 inches high minimum toe clearance is not provided at the front partition, is the size of the toilet compartment at least 65 inches deep (62 inches deep minimum if water closet is wall mounted)? If 9 inches high minimum toe clearance is not provided for at least one side partition, is the size of the toilet compartment at least 66 inches wide? Is the toilet seat 17 inches to 19 inches AFF? Is toilet centered 17-1/2 inches to 18-1/2 inches from sidewall? Is the toilet flush control automatic or located on the open side of the toilet? Is the toilet flush control 44 inches high maximum and operable with no more than 5 lbf of pressure? Is a horizontal sidewall grab bar provided that is 1-1/4 to 1-1/2 inches in diameter, 42 inches long minimum, extending 54 inches minimum from the rear wall, centered 33 inches above the floor and with no obstructions within 12 inches above or 1-1/2 inches below the bar? Is a horizontal rear wall grab bar provided that is 1-1/4 to 1-1/25 inches in diameter, 36 inches long minimum, extending 12 inches minimum from the toilet centerline towards the near side wall, centered 33 inches (36 inches maximum at tank type toilets) above the floor and with no obstructions within 12 inches above or 1-1/2 inches below the bar? Is the frontmost edge of the toilet paper dispenser opening (or roll if no dispenser opening is present) located 36 inches maximum from the rear wall and also 12 inches maximum from the front edge of the toilet seat? Is the toilet paper dispenser located at least 1-1/2 inches below the side wall grab bar? Is the toilet paper dispenser opening located at least 15 inches above the floor?
Is at least one of each hook and dispenser in the accessible compartment within an accessible reach range?

16.72

If a shelf is provided, is it located 40 inches minimum and 48 inches maximum AFF?

BK 2004 ADAAG Checklist for California Version 2.1 - March 5, 2010 Ex. D

Privileged & Confidential Attorney Work Product Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

Page 10 of 18

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page139 of 158

Line #

Yes

No N/A

Measurement or Number

Photo #

Comment

Question

16.73 16.74
16.75 16.76
16.77 16.78

Men's Ambulatory compartment
If there are 6 or more toilet compartments (or the combination of urinals and toilets totals 6 or more), is an ambulatory compartment provided? If an ambulatory compartment is provided is it 36 inches wide and at least 60 inches long? Is the compartment door out-swinging, self-closing, and does it provide at least 32 inches of clear opening width? Is all accessible door hardware operable with a closed fist? Is a door pull provided on the inside and outside of the compartment door located near the latch?

16.79 16.80

Is all door hardware centered between 34 inches and 44 inches AFF? Is the exterior door maneuvering space compliant with figure 11B-26?

16.81 16.82

Is toilet centered 18 inches from side wall?
Are there two horizontal sidewall grab bars provided in the ambulatory compartment that are 11/4 to 1-1/2 inches in diameter, 42 inches long minimum, extending 54 inches minimum from the rear wall?

BK 2004 ADAAG Checklist for California Version 2.1 - March 5, 2010 Ex. D

Privileged & Confidential Attorney Work Product Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

Page 11 of 18

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page140 of 158

Line #

Yes

No N/A

Measurement or Number

Photo #

Comment

Question

17.00 17.01 17.02

Women's or 2nd Unisex Restroom
Is this a unisex restroom? Is the centerline of the restroom signage located 60 inches AFF on the strike side of the door?

17.03 17.04 17.05 17.06 17.07 17.08 17.09
17.10 17.11 17.12 17.13 17.14 17.15 17.16 17.17 17.18
17.19
17.20
17.21 17.22
17.23
17.24 17.25

Is there an 18 inches clear floor space centered on the sign?
Does the sign have tactile characters that are raised at least 1/32"?
Is the character height of the tactile characters between 5/8 inches and 2 inches?
Does the sign have braille?
Do the non-glare characters on the sign visually contrast with a non-glare background?
Is there a 12 inches (on a side) raised circle located 60 inches AFF on the face of the door?
Are floor surfaces sloped less than 2% in all directions with no abrupt change in level greater than 1/4 inch high and no gaps greater than 1/2 inch wide.
Women's Entry Door
Can all opening hardware be operated with a closed fist? Is all door hardware centered between 34 inches and 44 inches AFF? Is the door opening force for all accessible interior and exterior doors no more than 5 lbf? Is the door closing speed 5 seconds or more from 90 degrees to 12 degrees from the latch?
Is the clear width of each door 32 inches minimum? Does each threshold have an overall height of 1/2 inch maximum? Does each threshold have a 1/4 inch abrupt height maximum? Does each threshold have a 1:2 maximum bevel between 1/4 inch abrupt and 1/2 inch overall?
Is there a 10 inches high smooth panel or kick plate located on the base of the push side of all the doors? Does each door have pull and push side maneuvering spaces that comply with the figure 11B 26? Is the required maneuvering space on each side of the door sloped 2% or less?
Is there a 60 inches diameter or a T-Turn turning space provided in the restroom? Other than the door to the accessible water closet compartment, a door, in any position, may encroach into this space by not more than 12 inches. Are the clear floor spaces for all required accessible fixtures free of over swinging doors (i.e. entry door or compartment doors)?
Women's Lavatory
Is the top of the accessible lavatory 28 inches to 34 inches high?

17.26
17.27
17.28 17.29
17.30 17.31 17.32

Is a 27 inches high by 30 inches wide by 8 inches deep minimum knee clearance provided under the lavatory?
Is a 9 inches high by 30 inches wide by 17 inches deep minimum toe clearance provided under the lavatory?
Are all the accessible lavatory pipes insulated or otherwise protected from contact?
Is the faucet hardware at the accessible lavatory automatic or operable with a closed fist? If automatic, does it remain open at least 10 seconds? If operable with a closed fist, does it require at most 5 pounds of force to operate? Is a mirror provided with the bottom reflecting edge located 40 inches high maximum?
Is an accessible lavatory located outside a water closet compartment? Is the accessible lavatory centered at least 18 inches from the nearest side wall or partition?

BK 2004 ADAAG Checklist for California Version 2.1 - March 5, 2010 Ex. D

Privileged & Confidential Attorney Work Product Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

Page 12 of 18

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page141 of 158

Line #

Yes

No N/A

Measurement or Number

Photo #

Comment

Question

17.33 17.34

Dispensers / Accessories
If there is a customer use light switch, is the top of the light switch outlet box 48 inches high maximum with a 30 inches by 48 inches minimum clear floor space?

17.35 17.36 17.37
17.38 17.39 17.40 17.41 17.42

Is at least one of each type of dispenser in the restroom on an accessible route with a 30 inches by 48 inches minimum clear floor space? Is at least one of each type of dispenser mounted with controls 40 inches maximum AFF?
Is the diaper changing station on an accessible route with an accessible clear floor space?
Is the diaper changing station pull down handle and all other operable controls located 40 inches high maximum? Is the diaper changing station surface (when open) 28 inches to 34 inches high maximum?
Does the diaper changing station surface (when open) provide accessible knee clearance? Are accessible dispensers operable without pinching, grasping or twisting of the wrist and require 5 lbf or less to operate? If there is an audible public alarm in the building, is there a visual fire alarm in the restroom?

BK 2004 ADAAG Checklist for California Version 2.1 - March 5, 2010 Ex. D

Privileged & Confidential Attorney Work Product Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

Page 13 of 18

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page142 of 158

Line #

Yes

No N/A

Measurement or Number

Photo #

Comment

Question

17.43 17.44

Women's Toilet
Is a clear floor space provided at a toilet that is 60 inches wide minimum (and providing at least 32 inches of clear width between the open side of the water closet and wall or partition) and extending at least 48 inches minimum clear in front of water closet for an end-opening door?

17.45

Is a clear floor space provided at a toilet that is 60 inches wide minimum (and providing at least 32 inches of clear width between the open side of the water closet and wall or partition) and extending at least 60 inches minimum clear in front of water closet for an side-opening door?

17.46 17.47

Is there an unobstructed route 44 inches wide leading through the restroom to the accessible stall.
Is the toilet compartment door self-closing, provide a clear opening width of 32 inches minimum, and located within 4 inches of the compartment corner diagonally opposite the toilet?

17.48

If door is located in the side of the compartment does it provide a net clear width of 34 inches?

17.49

If the accessible compartment door is out-swinging, are the exterior maneuvering spaces compliant with figure 11B-26? (The space immediately outside the compartment door must be at least 48 inches measured perpendicular to the compartment door in its closed position.)

17.50 17.51 17.52 17.53 17.54
17.55 17.56 17.57 17.58 17.59 17.60
17.61
17.62
17.63 17.64 17.65
17.66 17.67 17.68 17.69 17.70 17.71 17.72

Is all accessible compartment door hardware operable with a closed fist?
Is the inside and outside of the accessible compartment door equipped with a loop or U-shaped handle located near the latch? Is all door hardware centered between 34 inches and 44 inches AFF? If the toilet compartment has a side-opening door, is a minimum 60 inches wide and 60 inches deep clear floor space provided in front of the water closet? If 9 inches high minimum toe clearance is not provided at the front partition, is the size of the toilet compartment at least 65 inches deep (62 inches deep minimum if water closet is wall mounted)? If 9 inches high minimum toe clearance is not provided for at least one side partition, is the size of the toilet compartment at least 66 inches wide? Is the toilet seat 17 inches to 19 inches AFF? Is toilet centered 17-1/2 inches to 18-1/2 inches from sidewall? Is the toilet flush control automatic or located on the open side of the toilet? Is the toilet flush control 44 inches high maximum and operable with no more than 5 lbf of pressure? Is a horizontal sidewall grab bar provided that is 1-1/4 to 1-1/2 inches in diameter, 42 inches long minimum, extending 54 inches minimum from the rear wall, centered 33 inches above the floor and with no obstructions within 12 inches above or 1-1/2 inches below the bar? Is a horizontal rear wall grab bar provided that is 1-1/4 to 1-1/25 inches in diameter, 36 inches long minimum, extending 12 inches minimum from the toilet centerline towards the near side wall, centered 33 inches (36 inches maximum at tank type toilets) above the floor and with no obstructions within 12 inches above or 1-1/2 inches below the bar? Is the frontmost edge of the toilet paper dispenser opening (or roll if no dispenser opening is present) located 36 inches maximum from the rear wall and also 12 inches maximum from the front edge of the toilet seat? Is the toilet paper dispenser located at least 1-1/2 inches below the side wall grab bar? Is the toilet paper dispenser opening located at least 15 inches above the floor?
Is at least one of each hook and dispenser in the accessible compartment within an accessible reach range?
If a shelf is provided, is it located 40 inches minimum and 48 inches maximum AFF?
Women's Ambulatory compartment
If there are 6 or more toilet compartments (or the combination of urinals and toilets totals 6 or more), is an ambulatory compartment provided? If an ambulatory compartment is provided is it 36 inches wide and at least 60 inches long? Is the compartment door out-swinging, self-closing, and does it provide at least 32 inches of clear opening width? Is all accessible door hardware operable with a closed fist? Is a door pull provided on the inside and outside of the compartment door located near the latch?

17.73 17.74 17.75
17.76

Is all door hardware centered between 34 inches and 44 inches AFF? Is the exterior door maneuvering space compliant with figure 11B-26?
Is toilet centered 18 inches from side wall?
Are there two horizontal sidewall grab bars provided in the ambulatory compartment that are 11/4 to 1-1/2 inches in diameter, 42 inches long minimum, extending 54 inches minimum from the rear wall?

BK 2004 ADAAG Checklist for California Version 2.1 - March 5, 2010 Ex. D

Privileged & Confidential Attorney Work Product Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

Page 14 of 18

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page143 of 158
Appendix
A-1 Glossary

Glossary of Terms (Defined terms are italicized in the form.)

Term

Definition

AFF Access Aisle Accessible Route
Clear Floor Space Closed Fist Rule Closer

(A)bove (F)inished (F)loor. The clear ground area next to an accessible parking space that provides room for a driver or passenger with a disability to enter and exit from the side of their vehicle. Van accessible access aisles are at least 8' wide. All other access aisles are at least 5' wide. One access aisle can be shared between two accessible parking spaces if cars can pull in forward and back into the parking spaces allowing the driver to position either the rider or driver next to the access aisle. An accessible route is required to connect all accessible spaces or features on the site. Continuity of the accessible route is critical though the route is not required to be the shortest route. It must start at the property line, public sidewalk or the public right-of-way and lead to and accessible entry door. Accessible routes also connect the entry with the accessible parking and every feature used by customers that is intended to be accessible. Accessible routes from parking and public rights of way may overlap each other. An accessible route must meet three criteria. 1) It must be a minimum of 36" wide which accommodates a person who uses a wheelchair. The path can be narrowed at points to a minimum of 32" for a maximum distance of 24" such as when it goes through a doorway or past a column. 2) It must have no abrupt vertical changes in level greater than 1/ 4" high, nor horizontal gaps greater than 1/ 2" wide. If there are vertical breaks in the path, they must have a curb ramp or a ramp. 3) It must have a running slope not greater than 1: 20 (5%) and a cross slope not greater than 1: 50 (2%). Note: An obstruction to an accessible route may or may not also be a protruding object .
Accessible Route 30" wide X 48" long, level and unobstructed floor or ground surface that allows wheelchairs to approach and use equipment and features . People with arthritis, hand injuries or amputations, or high spinal cord injuries may have great difficulty making a tight grip, pinching, twisting their wrist or making fine finger movements. If a device can be operated by a hand formed into a loosely clenched fist (or loose fingered flail hand) and with little force (5 lbs. or less), then most people with limited hand dexterity should be able to operate it. Use the closed fist rule when surveying items such as door hardware and faucets. A mechanical device that automatically closes a door, closers must require no more than 5 pounds to operate and must take at least 3 seconds to close the door.

Cross Slope

The slope that is perpendicular to the direction of travel along a circulation route.

Curb ramp v. ramp A short ramp without handrails, built into or up to a sidewalk or raised apron and that provides a sloped transition usually between a driving surface and a walkway surface. A curb ramp is required wherever an accessible route crosses a curb or other level change. A ramp is a walking surface which has a running slope greater than 1:20 (5%).

Detectable

An object that is at or below a height of 27" that can be detected by a person using a long white cane. See Protruding Objects below.

Elements

Detectable warningsTruncated domes that visually contrast with the color of the pavement on which they are positioned. Detectable warnings take the place

of curbs to warn people with visual impairments of the edge between pedestrian and vehicular paths. visually impaired people pay

attention to detectable warnings to tell them if they are in pedestrian areas or dangerous vehicular areas. Parking spaces, access aisles

and cross walks are considered vehicular areas. Truncated domes were reserved for several years in the 1990's by the US Department

of Justice while they conducted research about the effectiveness of the material. They were reinstated in the early 2000's and are

required on all curb ramps and at flush edges between pedestrian and vehicular areas. Note: Some States and municipalities have

differing criteria.

Highest Operating The lowest operable part of the highest element or control a person much reach in order to complete the functions of the task. (i.e. on/off

Element/Highest handle, push to start button, dispenser controls, coin slot on pay telephones, pump on air pots, hot water or ice dispensers etc.) When

Operable Part

measuring the height of large buttons, measure to the lowest point where the button will activate the device.

Horizontal Gaps International Symbol of Accessibility (ISA)

All accessible routes must be free of horizontal gaps wider than 1/2" (i.e. cracks in walks, grates, grills etc.). The international 'wheelchair' symbol designating accessibility.

Knee and Toe Clearance

The shape of the area under tables, lavatories and counters that allows wheelchair users to closely approach and use the element.

Version 2.1 © 2010 Printed 5/30/2012 Ex. D

Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

page 15

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page144 of 158
Appendix
A-1 Glossary

Term Maneuvering Space & Turns

Definition 90 degree turns can be made from a 36" wide aisle into another 36" wide aisle.
180 degree turns can be made from a 42" wide aisle to a 42" wide aisle through a 48" deep turning space. 180 degree turns can also be made from a 36" wide aisle to another 36" wide aisle through a 60" deep turning space.
A 5' diameter space will allow any type of turn of up to 360 degrees. A 360 degree “T” turn can be made at the intersection of two 36" wide aisles.

5' Diameter Turning space Protruding Objects All circulation paths, including accessible routes , must have no protruding or overhanging objects
(such as signs, promotion displays or hanging planters) that might be a hazard to a person who is visually impaired. Any object that protrudes into the path more than 4" must either be above 80" (head height) or have a portion that is at or below 27" where it can be detected by a person using a long white cane. Queuing lines without intermediate railings (at or below 27") are potential protruding objects. Note: Protruding Objects do not necessarily obstruct an accessible route.

T-turn

Public Right of Way The streets and sidewalks owned by the local municipality that border the site.

Reach Range

Many people who are of short stature or who use wheelchairs can only reach

up to about 48" AFF. Some others who use a wheelchair can reach up to 54"

AFF from the side if there is a 30" deep by 48" wide clear floor space

alongside and no more than 10" horizontally from the object. Remember, the

side reach works only as long as there is nothing higher than 34" between the

wheelchair and the object.

Obstructed Side Reach Interpolation Table

Depth - Height

Depth - Height

Depth - Height

10" 54"

15" 51"

20" 48-1/2"

11" 53-1/2"

16" 50-1/2"

21" 47-1/2"

12" 53"

17" 50"

22" 47

13" 52 1/2"

18" 49 1/2"

23" 46-1/2"

14" 51 - 1/2"

19 49"

24" 46"

Protruding Objects

Running Slope Site T-turn Tactile Signage
Threshold
Unisex Restroom Van Accessible

Range of Reach The slope that is parallel to the direction of travel. The land on which the restaurant is located. See Maneuvering Space and Turns above Signs which have letters or characters that are raised above the surface so that they can be read by touch by people with limited vision. Tactile signs are also required to have raised Braille dots. Tactile signs should be located on the wall beside the latch jamb of a doorway and positioned so that the baseline of the highest characters is no more than 60" AFF and the baseline of the lowest characters on the sign is no less than 48" AFF. Note: It doesn't hurt to have a compliant sign on the wall and another sign on the face of the restroom door.
The horizontal strip on the floor at the bottom of a door frame that helps weatherproof the doorway. Thresholds can have an abrupt portion that is no higher than 1/4" and an overall height of no more than 1/2" with anything over 1/4" beveled at 1:2. An easy way to measure a curb ramp is to place a slope meter (or other straight edge) on top of the threshold so that it extends over the floor on either side and measure the distance between the bottom of the slope meter and the floor.
A toilet room intended for private use by either sex, one person at a time.
An accessible parking space that has an 8' wide access aisle to accommodate a van with a side lift.

Version 2.1 © 2010 Printed 5/30/2012 Ex. D

Universal Designers & Consultants, Inc.
www.UniversalDesign.com

page 16

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page145 of 158
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT E

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page146 of 158

Claim No:

Control No:

CLAIM FORM INSTRUCTIONS
Read Carefully Before You Complete the Attached Claim Form.
1. To be eligible to file a claim in this case, you must be a Damages Claimant.
2. A Damages Claimant is an individual with a mobility-impairment disability who uses a wheelchair or electric scooter for mobility who, at any time on or after October 16, 2006, was denied on the basis of his/her mobilityimpairment disability, full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of one or more of the eighty-six (86) covered restaurants.
3. The eighty-six (86) covered Burger King restaurants are identified in the attached table.
4. Each person who wishes to make a claim must submit his or her own claim form.
5. You must answer all questions and fill in all applicable blanks on the claim form, and this includes providing the information relevant to your experiences in the attached table. Failure to complete the claim form may result in your claim being denied.
6. In filling out your claim form, please print legibly or type.
7. Attach additional sheets if you need more space to answer questions or provide information. Write your full name and Social Security Number on each additional sheet.
8. If you believe you experienced discrimination at more than one store or on more than one occasion, you should describe each such incident in the attached table
9. You must date and sign the claim form. If you are under 18 years of age, your parent or legal guardian must also sign your claim form. If you cannot sign your name due to a disability or incapacity, the form may be signed by your designated representative. If a Damages Claimant has died, the executor of the estate or an authorized representative may complete and sign the form.
10. By signing your claim form, you are declaring under penalty of perjury that the information on the form is true and correct. Please understand that you could be subject to criminal penalties for submitting any false information on your claim form.
11. Your claim form must be mailed and postmarked on or before [DATE] or your claim will be denied. To insure that you have a record of your claim and date of mailing, we suggest that you keep a copy of your signed claim form and mail the original claim form by certified mail and keep a copy of the postmarked certified mail receipt. (Certified mail is suggested, but not required.) For your records and reference, please keep these instructions.
12. If you want further information about the settlement or have questions about these instructions or about how to complete the claim form, please call the Claims Administrator, free of charge, at (888) 404-8013 or call Class Counsel, also free of charge, at (888) 461-9191. Do not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court.
13. Filing this claim does not automatically guarantee that you will receive a monetary award as part of the settlement of

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page147 of 158
these cases. Your claim and the information you provide will be subject to review and verification by the Claims Administrator. You may be asked to provide additional information to support your claim. If you do not respond to a request for additional information by the date such response is due, your claim will be denied.
14. It is your responsibility to keep the Claims Administrator advised of any change in your address. If you do not keep the Claims Administrator advised of your current address, any monetary award to which you may be entitled could be forfeited. Any change of address should be reported in writing along with your complete name and signature, Social Security number, and former address to:
Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corporation
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. PO Box 91088
Seattle, WA 98111-9188
15. You do not need to have an attorney to help you submit a claim form. Class Counsel will attempt to answer any questions you might have. However, if you do wish to consult with your own attorney, you may do so at your own expense.
16. The amount that an Eligible Claimant may recover for each qualifying visit shall be determined as described in the Class Notice.
17. Please note: 1099 forms will be issued as required by law to recipients of the monetary award. Monetary awards obtained from this Lawsuit are subject to taxation and may impact eligibility for various government benefits, such as Supplemental Security Income, Medi-Cal or In-Home Supportive Services. You may also be required to report your receipt of settlement funds to government agencies. You are strongly advised to consult an independent tax advisor, as well as a disability benefits counselor, such as Disability Rights California ((510) 267-1200) or your local legal aid office.
18. Monetary awards may be made out to pre-established special needs trusts. If you would like your award to be made out to a special needs trust, please provide the name of the trust below.

POSOTMRM[UDBASAERTTFKEOBE]ERDCEOaNse3:11-cv-00667-WHcAV/aollTDahboehcaGPup.aCmOurord.eareBpnpnoout2xCrva1i9.tt6i1yBo-0Gnu18rr8goeFurpilK,eIidnn0cg.6/14/12

Page148 of 158

Claim No:

Control No:

BKC

CLAIM FORM
Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corp., Civil Action No. C1100667
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU READ THE ATTACHED INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE YOU BEGIN FILLING OUT THIS CLAIM FORM YOUR CLAIM FORM MUST BE POSTMARKED ON OR BEFORE [DATE]

19. Full Name: Last
20. Current Address: No.

First Street Name

Middle Apt. No.

City 21. Permanent Address (if different):
No.

State Street Name

Zip Code Apt. No.

City
22. Home Telephone Number: (

State
)

Zip Code

23. Alternate Telephone Number: (

)

24. Email Address:

25. Social Security Number:
26: If you have a trust established, and would like the check for your portion of the settlement funds to be made out to the trust, please include the trust name here:

________________________________________________________________

27. Have you been to any of the 86 covered BURGER KING® restaurants listed in the Claim Form Instructions between October 16, 2006 and the present?

YES

NO (Circle one)

If your answer is No, you are not eligible to participate in this claims process. If your answer is Yes, please proceed to the next question.

QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1 (888) 404-8013 3

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page149 of 158

28. If you have a mobility impairment that: a. requires you to use a wheelchair or scooter for mobility, b. visited a covered restaurants during the covered period, and c. encountered any architectural or other barriers that deterred you from entering the restaurant or hindered your access within a restaurant;

In the spaces provided in the following table, you should indicate the number of times you visited each of the restaurants, the dates you visited the stores, and describe the hindrances you encountered.

If you do not have a mobility impairment that requires you to use a wheelchair or scooter for mobility, did not visit any of the covered restaurants, did not encounter any architectural or other barriers that deterred you from entering a covered restaurant or hindered your access with a covered restaurant, or cannot describe the hindrance you encountered, then you are NOT eligible to participate in the claims process and should not complete the form below.

29. As to these 86 restaurants, have you previously released your claim against Burger King Corporation for the time period between October 16, 2006 and the present?

YES

NO (Circle one)

If your answer is Yes, you are not eligible to participate in this claims process. Please proceed if your answer is No.

I,

(print name) declare, under penalty of perjury that

all of the information on this form is true and correct. I understand that I could be subject to criminal penalties for

submitting any false information on this claim form.

Claimant

Date

YOU OR YOUR AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE MUST COMPLETE AND SIGN YOUR CLAIM FORM IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE CONSIDERED.
YOUR CLAIM FORM MUST BE POSTMARKED ON OR BEFORE [DATE] (LATE CLAIM FORMS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED).
YOUR COMPLETED AND SIGNED CLAIM FORM MUST BE MAILED TO:
Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corporation
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc PO Box 91088
Seattle, WA 98111-9188

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page150 of 158

Covered

Restaurant

No.

Address

Number of

visits to

store

during the

Class

City

Period

Date(s) of visit(s)

Specific description of how your access was hindered at this store

2359

29136 Roadside

Dr

Agoura

2495

2200 Otis Dr

Alameda

4514

1901 Webster St Alameda

726 2976 3316 6931 1036 2891 1682 2149 3530

510 S Euclid St Anaheim

13446 Lincoln W ay

Auburn

41383 Big Bear Big Bear

Lake Blvd

Lake

2500 E Imperial

Hwy

Brea

21227 Sherman Canoga

W ay

Park

7201 Fair Oaks

Blvd

Carmichael

8030 Greenback Citrus

Ln

Heights

Costa 3150 Harbor Blvd Mesa

1250 9th St

Crescent City

814

822 N Johnson St El Cajon

Covered

Restaurant

No.

Address

1549

2410 N Cedar Ave

3160

4610 E Kings Canyon Rd

9913

6735 N Golden State Blvd

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page151 of 158

Number of

visits to

store

during the

Class

City

Period

Date(s) of visit(s)

Specific description of how your access was hindered at this store

Fresno

Fresno

Fresno

2555 2132

450 Leavesley Rd Gilroy

1200 E Colorado

St

Glendale

2319 3147

301 W Lacey Blvd Hanford

12513 E Carson Hawaiian

St

Gardens

5869 3233 609

16 Southland Mall Hayward

81-779 Us Highway 111

Indio

2101 W Whittier

Blvd

La Habra

4405

14600 Valley Blvd La Puente

2473 2901

1202 W Avenue I Lancaster

43627 N. 15th St

W

Lancaster

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page152 of 158

Covered

Restaurant

No.

Address

Number of

visits to

store

during the

Class

City

Period

Date(s) of visit(s)

Specific description of how your access was hindered at this store

Lemon

910

6960 Broadway Grove

2119

2600 Long Beach Long

Blvd

Beach

2399

Long 5540 Cherry Ave Beach

5150

10931 Los Alamitos Blvd

Los Alamitos

3520 Sepulveda Los

919

Blvd

Angeles

911 W Jefferson Los

943

Blvd

Angeles

1346

1453 W

Los

Manchester Ave Angeles

1417

12736 South Avalon Blvd

Los Angeles

11490

4918 W Sunset Los

Blvd

Angeles

2671 3459 975

525 Pacheco Blvd Los Banos

2090 West Hwy

88

Martell

175 W Calaveras

Blvd

Milpitas

2893

9710 Central Ave Montclair

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page153 of 158

Covered

Restaurant

No.

Address

Number of

visits to

store

during the

Class

City

Period

Date(s) of visit(s)

Specific description of how your access was hindered at this store

10567

23125 Hemlock Moreno

Ave

Valley

2867

16025 Monterey

Road

Morgan Hill

National

780

815 Highland Ave City

6947

34943 Newark Blvd

Newark

1937

24530 Lyons Ave Newhall

6816

1666 2nd St

Norco

13284

1541 E 12th St Oakland

817

1420 Mission Ave Oceanside

3587

3746 Mission Ave Oceanside

4088 3777 896 16563

227 S Tremont St Oceanside

2734 N Tustin Ave

Orange

Pacific 4253 Mission Blvd Beach

39519 10th Street

W est

Palmdale

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page154 of 158

Covered

Restaurant

No.

Address

Number of

visits to

store

during the

Class

City

Period

Date(s) of visit(s)

Specific description of how your access was hindered at this store

1038

8030 Van Nuys Panorama

Blvd

City

3157

211 N McDowell

Blvd

Petaluma

3217

1571 Fitzgerald

Dr

Pinole

2795

5315 Hopyard Rd Pleasanton

916

12427 Poway Rd Poway

3208 912 2521

2055 Eureka Way Redding

Redondo 1919 Artesia Blvd Beach

139 N. China Lake Blvd

Ridgecrest

1646 3580 2474 835 15079

3630 Tyler St

Riverside

6125 Commerce Rohnert

Blvd

Park

111 S Harding Blvd

Roseville

3747 Rosecrans
St San Francisco
Int'l Airport,
Terminal 3

San Diego
San Francisco

Covered

Restaurant

No.

Address

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page155 of 158

Number of

visits to

store

during the

Class

City

Period

Date(s) of visit(s)

Specific description of how your access was hindered at this store

1572 1932

385 S Kiely

San Jose

936 Blossom Hill

Rd

San Jose

2279 3246

329 N Capitol Ave San Jose

635 E Capitol Expressway

San Jose

3546

261 Race St

San Jose

3827 6028 6755 4641

3098 Story Rd
4040 Monterey Road
2170 Monterey Rd
728 W San Marcos Blvd

San Jose
San Jose
San Jose San Marcos

1897 3355

215 N Gaffey St San Pedro

680 E San Ysidro

Blvd

San Ysidro

4552 918

601 E Dyer Rd 1919 Pico Blvd

Santa Ana
Santa Monica

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page156 of 158

Covered

Restaurant

No.

Address

Number of

visits to

store

during the

Class

City

Period

Date(s) of visit(s)

Specific description of how your access was hindered at this store

2268

619 W Charter W ay

Stockton

2215

13421 Newport

Ave

Tustin

2563

711 E Perkins St Ukiah

3034 13580 733 3441

1801 Decoto Rd Union City

377 Vista Village

Dr

Vista

8845 S. Painter

St.

W hittier

455 N. Humboldt

St.

W illows

2022

601 Colusa Ave Yuba City

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page157 of 158
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT F

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document216-1 Filed06/14/12 Page158 of 158
Exhibit F, Filed Under Seal

 
 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

10

11 VALLABHAPURAPU, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14 BURGER KING CORPORATION,

No. C 11-00667 WHA
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT; MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

15

Defendant

16

/

17

18

INTRODUCTION

19

This is an ADA disability-access class action alleging barriers to access on behalf of

20 mobility-impaired customers of restaurants in California leased by defendant Burger King

21 Corporation. The parties have filed a joint motion for final approval of the settlement. Class

22 counsel also requests attorney’s fees and litigation costs and expenses. For the reasons explained

23 below, final approval of the proposed settlement is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s

24 fees and costs is GRANTED.

25

STATEMENT

26

This action is the second part of a class action originally asserted against Burger King

27 Corporation. Plaintiffs alleged that restaurants that Burger King Corporation leases to its

28 franchisees in California violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights

Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act. Plaintiffs alleged that Burger King violated state

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 and federal regulations by pursuing discriminatory policies or practices that resulted in unlawful

2 architectural or design barriers which denied customers who use wheelchairs or scooters access

3 to services at these Burger King restaurants.

4

In the first part of the litigation, Castaneda v. Burger King Corporation, No. 08-04262

5 WHA, ten classes were certified as to ten of the alleged non-compliant restaurants. The parties

6 reached a class settlement, final approval of which was granted by this Court in July 2010.

7

Plaintiffs then filed this action in February 2011 against Burger King. The complaint in

8 this action brings the same claims and asserts class action allegations as to the remaining 86

9 restaurants not included in the Castaneda settlement. Plaintiffs reached a settlement agreement

10 with Burger King regarding the remaining 86 restaurants in this action.

11

The proposed class action settlement provides for significant injunctive relief and

12 damages. Specifically, the injunctive relief includes all of the measures agreed to in Castaneda,

13 including the elimination of all accessibility barriers and the use of mandatory checklists with

14 specific accessibility items for remodeling, alterations, repairs, and maintenance. An additional

15 remedial measure not included in the Castaneda settlement is that Burger King will include in its

16 manual to its franchisees the recommendation that franchisees check the force required to open

17 all public exterior and restroom doors twice per month to ensure that they do not require more

18 than five pounds of pressure to open. The proposed settlement provides for a cash payment of

19 $19,000,000 to satisfy and settle all claims for damages, as well as any attorney’s fees and costs

20 awarded (Settlement Agreement ¶ 9.1.1). The settlement agreement provides that it “does not in

21 any way affect the rights, obligations, or restaurants at issue in the Castaneda Settlement” (id. at

22 ¶ 1.5). Of the 86 restaurants originally at issue, the injunctive relief applies to the 77 Burger

23 King restaurants that are still in business and are leased by Burger King to franchisees in

24 California.

25

After reviewing the proposed class settlement and revising the proposed notice forms, the

26 Court directed plaintiffs to give notice to class members so that a fairness hearing could be held.

27 A “short-form notice” was approved, which was required to be posted for 30 calendar days at

28 each of the restaurants covered by the class certification order. A “long-form notice” was also

2

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 approved, which was to be sent out to existing damage claimants and to northern California

2 disability rights groups. A fairness hearing was held on October 25, 2012 and addressed (1)

3 whether the proposed settlement should be approved, and (2) the amount of fees and costs to be

4 awarded to class counsel from the settlement fund.

5

The deadline for class members to object or opt out of the settlement was September 17,

6 2012. Class members can opt in to receive monetary damages by November 15. Each damages

7 claimant is required to complete a claim form documenting his or her eligible visits to one of the

8 86 restaurants where he or she encountered a barrier to access. As in Castaneda, the proposed

9 settlement provides that monetary awards to each damages claimant will be distributed pro rata

10 based on the total number of visits by each damages claimant, with a maximum number of six

11 visits for which each claimant may obtain recovery. Class members who do not opt in to receive

12 damages claims do not release their rights to pursue such damages claims separately.

13

Plaintiffs also move for a combined $4,823,082.58 in attorney’s fees and litigation costs

14 and expenses, consisting of reimbursement of $230,776.77 in litigation costs and expenses, and

15 $4,592,305.81 in attorney’s fees. To provide class members with an opportunity to review and

16 comment on the application for an award of attorney’s fees and costs, class counsel posted the

17 application on their website three weeks prior to the September 17 object/opt-out deadline (Lah

18 Decl. ¶ 7).

19

ANALYSIS

20

This order first explains why the pending settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate

21 under FRCP 23(e) and Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998) (setting

22 forth the factors to be considered when evaluating class action settlements). Next, this order

23 discusses why the awarded attorney’s fees are reasonable.

24

1.

THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS FAIR, REASONABLE, AND ADEQUATE.

25

Having considered the terms of the settlement agreement, proposed plan of distribution,

26 and adequacy of notice to class members, and having considered the motion for final approval

27 of the settlement agreement, the declarations submitted therewith, oral argument by counsel,

28 and all other documents of record in this matter, this order holds that the settlement agreement

3

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 is in the best interests of the class and is fair, reasonable, and adequate under the factors set forth

2 in Hanlon.

3

No objections to the settlement have been filed or received by counsel or the claims

4 administrator. One class member opted out (Keough Decl. ¶¶ 14–15). Class counsel attempted

5 to contact the individual several times and confirmed that she was not interested in participating

6 in the settlement (Lah Decl. ¶ 6). The settlement agreement provides for injunctive relief,

7 including the elimination of alleged accessibility barriers, the use of mandatory checklists with

8 specific accessibility items for remodeling, alterations, repairs and maintenance, and the

9 monitoring of compliance. Burger King will also include in its manual a guideline that

10 franchisees should check to ensure the appropriate force is required to open public exterior and

11 restroom doors. The settlement agreement provides for the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce

12 the terms of settlement until October 26, 2016, four years after the settlement agreement has

13 been finalized.

14

The settlement also provides for a cash payment of $19,000,000 to the settlement class.

15 Monetary awards to each claimant in the settlement class will be distributed pro rata based on the

16 total number of visits by each damages claimant to one of the 86 restaurants where he or she

17 encountered a barrier, with a maximum number of six visits for which each damages claimant

18 can obtain recovery. Each of these damage claimants must complete a claim form documenting

19 his or her eligible visits. Payment for the costs of notifying and administering the settlement up

20 to $100,000 shall be paid by class counsel’s awarded attorney’s fees, while costs above those

21 amounts shall come from the settlement fund.

22

The class administrator reported that, as of October 11, 620 individuals had submitted

23 claim forms to recover damages. The class administrator estimated that, assuming a net

24 settlement fund of $14,250,000, the average award value is $22,983.87 per processed claim,

25 $1,253.62 per store visit based on a raw store visit count, and $4,968.61 per store visit based on

26 an adjusted store visit count (limiting the number of eligible visits per claimant to six visits)

27 (Keough Decl. ¶ 16). The parties state that, if the numbers reported by the claims administrator

28 do not change significantly, the average recovery per claimant will be 50 percent above the

4

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 average recovery in Castaneda (Br. 12–13). At the final fairness hearing, class counsel stated

2 that as of October 22, 677 individuals have submitted claim forms to recover damages.

3

Accordingly, final approval of the settlement and plan of allocation is hereby GRANTED.

4

2.

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS.

5

Despite the settlement agreement and defendant’s acquiescence to the attorney’s fees

6 sought, a court must still ensure that the attorney’s fees and costs awarded are “fair, reasonable,

7 and adequate.” See Staton v. Boeing, Co., 327 F. 3d 938, 963–64 (9th Cir. 2003). Common fund

8 fees, as we have here, are consistent with the “American Rule” (i.e., that each party pays for its

9 own litigation expenses), and “a litigant or lawyer who recovers from the common fund for the

10 benefit of persons other than himself or his client is entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee from

11 the fund as a whole.” Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 478 (1980).

12

District courts in this circuit may use two different approaches to gauge the

13 reasonableness of a requested fee award under the traditional common-fund approach. The first

14 is the lodestar method, whereby a reasonable number of hours is multiplied by a reasonable

15 hourly rate. The lodestar may include a risk multiplier to enhance the fees under certain

16 circumstances, in which a court considers “the quality of the representation, the benefit obtained

17 for the class, the complexity and novelty of the issues presented, and the risk of nonpayment.”

18 Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. Our court of appeals, however, also allows a calculation based upon a

19 percentage of the common fund. See Staton, 327 F.3d at 967–68. The benchmark percentage is

20 25 percent. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d 1011, 1026. Here, the requested $4,592,305.81 in attorney’s

21 fees equals approximately 25 percent of the settlement fund, after costs.

22

In Castaneda, class counsel reduced their lodestar by $1,106,625.35, representing over

23 4,500 hours for work attributable to the 86 restaurants covered by the current settlement

24 (Castaneda Dkt. No. 346 ¶ 41; Fox Decl. ¶ 39). After Castaneda, class counsel spent an

25 additional 5,568.53 hours on the current settlement, after exercising billing judgment and

26 deleting 557.6 hours (Lee Decl., Exh. B). In total, class counsel claim to have expended over ten

27 thousand hours in this six-year action (ibid.). After applying what they assert are reasonable

28

5

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 rates to those hours (ranging from $335 to $825 for the attorneys, and from $225 to $275 for

2 paralegals and other staff), counsel calculate a lodestar of $3,546,721.60 (Br. 12).

3

Counsel request that this order enhance the total fee award by applying a multiplier of

4 1.29, which this order finds warranted given “the quality of the representation, the benefit

5 obtained for the class, the complexity and novelty of the issues presented, and the risk of

6 nonpayment” in this action. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1029. The determinative factor, however, is

7 the benefit to the class. Even after the requested attorney’s fees and costs are deducted, the

8 monetary damages of over $14 million — which, according to plaintiffs, is the largest total

9 recovery amount ever obtained in a disability access case — is only part of the relief obtained for

10 class members. As noted above, the settlement also provides for considerable measures of

11 injunctive relief at the restaurants at issue to eliminate accessibility barriers. Because the

12 deadline for claims is November 15, 2012, the average monetary recovery per damages claimant

13 is yet unknown; however, the $14 million net settlement fund, by itself, is very good. Based on

14 the current number of processed claims, class counsel estimates that the average recovery per

15 claimant will be nearly 50 percent above the average recovery in Castaneda (Br. 12–13).

16 Accordingly, the benefits provided to the class warrant the requested fee award. Class counsel’s

17 request for $4,592,305.81 in attorney’s fees is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

18

Plaintiffs’ counsel seek $230,776.77 in litigation costs and expenses. This order finds

19 that the costs and expenses, as detailed by class counsel, are reasonable. Additionally, plaintiffs’

20 counsel have not included in this amount the $100,000 in claims administration costs that they

21 have agreed to pay out of their recovered attorney’s fees. For the reasons stated above, the

22 request for attorney’s fees and reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses is GRANTED.

23

CONCLUSION

24

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered as follows:

25

1. The Court hereby finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate as to

26 the class, plaintiffs, and defendants, that it is the product of good faith, arms-length negotiations

27 between the parties, and that the settlement is consistent with public policy and fully complies

28 with all applicable provisions of law. The breadth of the release to be imposed on the absent

6

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 class members is sufficiently narrow. Absent class members who have not opted in to pursue

2 damages claims release only non-monetary claims relating to the accessibility of the restaurants

3 covered by the settlement based on conduct preceding final approval of the settlement

4 agreement. They do not release any claims for monetary damages. The final settlement is

5 therefore approved.

6

2. The notice given to class members and potential damages claimants was the best

7 notice practicable under the circumstances, was valid, gave due and sufficient notice to all class

8 members, and complied fully with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due process, and all

9 other applicable laws. A long-form notice was mailed to all known damages claimants described

10 in the proposed settlement. A short-form notice was posted for a period of 30 calendar days in

11 all Burger King restaurants covered by the settlement, which provided information for obtaining

12 the long-form notice and opt-in/opt-out form. The short-form notice was also mailed to northern

13 California disability rights groups. The long-form and short-form notices provided information

14 regarding the manner in which class members could object to or participate in the settlement and

15 the manner in which class members could opt out of the class. A full and fair opportunity was

16 afforded to class members to participate in the proceedings to determine whether the proposed

17 settlement should be given final approval. Accordingly, this order holds that all class members

18 who did not exclude themselves from the settlement by filing a timely request for exclusion are

19 bound by this settlement order and judgment.

20

3. The Court retains continuing jurisdiction over the class action, named plaintiffs,

21 the class, and defendant for four years (until October 26, 2016) from the date of entry of this

22 order in order to supervise the implementation, enforcement, construction and interpretation of

23 the revised settlement agreement and this order.

24

4. The Court hereby awards to plaintiffs’ counsel attorney’s fees of $4,592,305.81 and

25 $230,776.77 in litigation costs and expenses, to be paid from the settlement fund. Plaintiffs’

26 counsel shall be awarded the $230,776.77 as well as 50 percent of the attorney’s fees now; the

27 remaining 50 percent may be recovered only after counsel certifies that the fund is completely

28

7

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 wound up. If problems do arise and if management of this fund so necessitates, any shortfall in

2 funds to pay class members may be deducted from the unpaid attorney’s fees.

3

5. Damages claimants who have already opted in or intend to opt in to receive monetary

4 damages have until November 15, 2012, to complete, sign, and submit their claim forms for

5 shares of the damages fund. Eligibility for payments from the net settlement fund shall be

6 determined based on the procedure set forth in section nine of the settlement agreement.

7

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

10 Dated: October 26, 2012. 11

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

 
 Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page1 of 48

1 Bill Lann Lee – CA State Bar No. 108452
Andrew Lah – CA State Bar No. 234580
2 Julia Campins – CA State Bar No. 238023
Joshua Davidson - CA State Bar No. 275168
3 LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C.
476 – 9th Street
4 Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 839-6824
5 Facsimile: (510) 839-7839
Email: blee@lewisfeinberg.com
6
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7

Timothy P. Fox – CA State Bar No. 157750 Fox & Robertson, P.C. 104 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 595-9700 TTY: (877) 595-9706 Facsimile: (303) 595-9705 Email: tfox@foxrob.com
Additional attorneys listed below

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

Mohan Vallabhapurapu; Ron Sarfaty; Kenneth

) Case No. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)

10 Kilgore; Tyrey Mills, a minor, by and through his )

next friend and mother Ginene Mills; Jenilyn Jimenez; ) FIRST AMENDED

11 Elizabeth Baker; William Farber; Uverda Harry;

) COMPLAINT

Kathryn Tyler; Priscilla Walker; Richard Felix;

)

12 Kathleen Gonzalez; Judy Cutler; Diane Dailey; Carol )

Lacher; Bethany McClam; Erik Nieland; Carol

) [CLASS ACTION]

13 Picchi; William Showen; George Partida; Kitty Dean; )

Alfred Brown; Marsha Shining Woman; Goldene )

14 Springer; Daniel Xenos; Katherine Adams; Lynda )

Bowman; Theresa Brown-Gaulitz; Jamie Coleman; )

15 Sheila Flaherty; Lisa Lothridge; Diane Mackie; Pia )

Parker; Coleen Rairdon-Brainard; Geri Samuel;

)

16 William Sheehan; Barry Smith; David Thomas; and )

John Whited, on behalf of themselves and others )

17 similarly situated,

)

)

18

Plaintiffs,

)

)

19

vs.

)

)

20 Burger King Corporation,

21

Defendant.

22 INTRODUCTION
23 1. Burger King Corporation (“BKC”) is a national corporation that leases and/or
24 subleases approximately ninety restaurants in the State of California to tenant/franchises (“BKL
25 restaurants”). This proposed class action alleges that BKC has violated state and federal laws
26 and regulations by pursuing discriminatory policies or practices that result in unlawful
27

28

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page2 of 48

1 architectural or design barriers which deny customers who use wheelchairs or scooters access to

2 services at BKL restaurants.

3

2. BKC pursues a policy or practice of failing to build, alter and maintain BKL

4 restaurants in compliance with applicable wheelchair-access regulations. State and federal law

5 provide BKC with objective requirements for architectural and design features to ensure that

6 BKL restaurants will be accessible to customers who use wheelchairs and scooters. Pursuant to

7 statutory mandate, the Department of Justice has promulgated Standards for Accessible Design

8 at 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. A (“DOJ Standards”), see 42 U.S.C. § 12186(b) (statutory mandate), 9 and the California State Architect has developed the accessibility standards set forth in the

10 California Building Code, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24 (“Title 24”), Cal. Gov’t Code § 4450 see
11 (statutory mandate). The DOJ Standards and Title 24 will be collectively referred to as the

12 “Disability Access Requirements.” The Disability Access Requirements contain detailed design

13 specifications for public accommodations covering a variety of architectural elements, including,

14 for example, parking lots, accessible routes, and restrooms. In addition, the applicable

15 regulations require BKC to maintain BKL restaurants in compliance with these standards.

16 During the class period, however, BKC has provided uniform, objective requirements to

17 tenant/franchisees to build, maintain or modify architectural or design features in BKL

18 restaurants except for many Disability Access Requirements. During the class period, BKC has 19 also regularly monitored compliance by tenant/franchises with these requirements except for 20 many Disability Access Requirements. As a result, BKL restaurants have -- and have had

21 during the class period -- unlawful access barriers.

22

3. These unlawful access barriers include but are not limited to entry and restroom

23 doors that are too heavy; inaccessible restrooms; inaccessible parking lots; inaccessible path of

24 travel to the service counter; inaccessible service counters; inaccessible dining areas; and

25 inaccessible drinks and self-service dispensers. These barriers have subjected Plaintiffs and the

26 proposed Class and Subclasses to injury, and will continue to do so unless enjoined.

27

4. This complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to correct BKC’s policies

28 and practices to include measures necessary to ensure compliance with Disability Access

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 2

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page3 of 48

1 Requirements and to include monitoring of such measures, to remove unlawful access barriers,

2 and to prevent their recurrence so that Plaintiffs and the proposed Class and Subclasses of

3 customers who use wheelchairs or scooters will have full and equal enjoyment of BKL

4 restaurants. The complaint also seeks minimum statutory damages to compensate Class and

5 Subclass members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.

6

5. This case is related to a previous action against BKC filed in the United States

7 District Court for the Northern District of California in Castaneda v. Burger King Corporation, 8 N.D. Cal. No. C 08-4262 WHA (JL). That action was filed on September 10, 2008 and

9 certified as ten class actions on September 25, 2009. The court entered a final order approving

10 a settlement proposed by the parties on July 12, 2010. This action does not concern those ten

11 BKL restaurants.

12

6. This action concerns any California BKL restaurant not covered by the

13 Castaneda class certification order that, during a time period to be determined by the Court, 14 Burger King leased to or from other entities (“Remaining BKLs”). Plaintiffs believe that there

15 are 86 Remaining BKLs.

16

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

17

7. Plaintiffs’ claims arise under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

18 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq., (“ADA”), the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code, § 51, et seq. 19 (“the Unruh Act”), and the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code, § 54, et seq. (the 20 “CDPA”).

21

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

22 §§ 1331, 1332 and 1343, and pursuant to its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims

23 brought under the laws of the State of California. In addition, the matter in controversy here

24 exceeds $5,000,000 and there are members of the proposed class who are citizens of states

25 different from Defendant. Therefore, this Court has diversity jurisdiction over the claims of the

26 class pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 3

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page4 of 48

1

9. The Court may grant declaratory and other relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201

2 and 2202. Money damages alone are inadequate, and Plaintiffs and class members suffer and

3 will otherwise continue to suffer irreparable injury.

4

10. Venue is proper within this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

5

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

6

11. This action arises in part in San Francisco and Alameda Counties and thus is

7 properly assigned to the San Francisco Division.

8

PARTIES

9

12. Plaintiff Ron Sarfaty is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of the

10 State of California. Plaintiff Sarfaty is a person with left side hemiplegia who uses a wheelchair

11 for mobility. He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A), and

12 a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California

13 Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Sarfaty has patronized Burger King restaurants in

14 California in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future.

15 Specifically, Plaintiff Sarfaty has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to

16 those located at 1919 Pico Blvd., Santa Monica, 21227 Sherman Way, Canoga Park, 8030 Van

17 Nuys Blvd., Panorama City, 24530 Lyons Ave., Newhall, and 29136 Roadside Dr., Agoura.

18

13. Plaintiff Kenneth Kilgore is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

19 the State of California. Plaintiff Kilgore is a person with quadriplegia who uses a wheelchair for

20 mobility. He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical

21 disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California Government

22 Code section 12926. Plaintiff Kilgore has patronized Burger King restaurants in California in

23 the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically,

24 Plaintiff Kilgore has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to 211 N.

25 McDowell Blvd., Petaluma, and 6125 Commerce Blvd., Rohnert Park.

26

14. Plaintiff Tyrey Mills is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of the

27 State of California. He is a minor and brings this suit through his next friend, his mother Ginene

28 Mills. Tyrey Mills is a person with Down Syndrome who uses a wheelchair for mobility. He

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 4

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page5 of 48

1 has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as

2 that term is defined in applicable California law, including California Government Code section

3 12926. Plaintiff Tyrey Mills has patronized Burger King restaurants in California in the past and

4 intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Tyrey

5 Mills has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to 1901 Webster St.,

6 Alameda, and 2200 Otis Dr., Alameda.

7

15. Plaintiff Jenilyn Jimenez is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

8 the State of California. Plaintiff Jimenez is a person with paraplegia who uses a wheelchair or

9 scooter for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102,

10 and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California

11 Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Jimenez has patronized Burger King restaurants in

12 California in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future.

13 Specifically, Plaintiff Jimenez has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited

14 to 3747 Rosecrans St., San Diego, and 680 E. San Ysidro Blvd., San Ysidro.

15

16. Plaintiff Elizabeth Baker is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

16 the State of California. Plaintiff Baker is a person with spinal problems, degenerative joint

17 disease, and arthritis who uses a wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning

18 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable

19 California law, including California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Baker has

20 patronized Burger King restaurants in California in the past and intends to continue to patronize

21 those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Baker has patronized Burger King

22 restaurants including but not limited to 619 W. Charter Way, Stockton.

23

17. Plaintiff William Farber is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

24 the State of California. Plaintiff Farber is a person with Progressive Multiple Sclerosis who uses

25 a wheelchair for mobility. He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

26 § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including

27 California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Farber has patronized Burger King

28 restaurants in California in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 5

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page6 of 48

1 future. Specifically, Plaintiff Farber has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not

2 limited to 2734 N. Tustin Ave., Orange.

3

18. Plaintiff Uverda Harry is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

4 the State of California. Plaintiff Harry is a person with rheumatoid arthritis who uses a

5 wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

6 § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including

7 California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Harry has patronized Burger King

8 restaurants in California in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the

9 future. Specifically, Plaintiff Harry has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not

10 limited to 2200 Otis Dr., Alameda, and 1571 Fitzgerald Dr., Pinole.

11

19. Plaintiff Kathryn Tyler is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

12 the State of California. Plaintiff Tyler is a person with muscular dystrophy who uses a

13 wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

14 § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including

15 California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Tyler has patronized Burger King

16 restaurants in California in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the

17 future. Specifically, Plaintiff Tyler has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not

18 limited to those located at 619 W. Charter Way, Stockton, 329 N. Capitol Ave., San Jose, and

19 3098 Story Rd., San Jose.

20

20. Plaintiff Mohan Vallabhapurapu is and has been at all times material hereto a

21 resident of the State of California. Plaintiff Vallabhapurapu is a person with a spinal cord injury

22 who uses a wheelchair for mobility. He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42

23 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law,

24 including California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Vallabhapurapu has patronized

25 Burger King Restaurants in California in the past and intends to continue to patronize these

26 restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Vallabhapurapu has patronized Burger King

27 restaurants including but not limited to those located at 510 Euclid St., Anaheim, 1420 Mission

28 Ave., Oceanside, 1919 Pico Blvd., Santa Monica, 911 W. Jefferson Blvd., Los Angeles, 385

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 6

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page7 of 48

1 South Kiely, San Jose, 3630 Tyler St., Riverside, 24530 Lyons Ave., Newhall, 2600 Long

2 Beach Blvd., Long Beach, 12513 East Carson St., Hawaiian Gardens, 81-779 US Highway 111,

3 Indio, 261 Race St., San Jose, 10931 Los Alamitos Blvd., Los Alamitos, 1666 2nd St., Norco,

4 2500 East Imperial Highway, Brea, and 23125 Hemlock Ave., Moreno Valley.

5

21. Plaintiff Priscilla Walker is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

6 the State of California. Plaintiff Walker is a person who has had a knee replacement surgery

7 and uses a wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42

8 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law,

9 including California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Walker has patronized Burger

10 King restaurants in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future.

11 Specifically, Plaintiff Walker has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to

12 that located at 450 Leavesley Rd., Gilroy.

13

22. Plaintiff Richard Felix is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

14 the State of California. Plaintiff Felix is a person who has post-polio syndrome and uses a

15 wheelchair for mobility. He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102,

16 and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California

17 Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Felix has patronized Burger King restaurants in the

18 past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff

19 Felix has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to those located at 2410

20 N. Cedar Ave., Fresno, and 4610 E. Kings Canyon Rd., Fresno.

21

23. Plaintiff Kathleen Gonzalez is and has been at all times material hereto a resident

22 of the State of California. Plaintiff Gonzalez is a person with several medical conditions which

23 require her to use a wheelchair and, more recently, a scooter for mobility. She has a disability

24 within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is

25 defined in applicable California law, including California Government Code section 12926.

26 Plaintiff Gonzalez has patronized Burger King restaurants in the past and intends to continue to

27 patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Gonzalez has patronized Burger

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 7

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page8 of 48

1 King restaurants including but not limited to 139 N. China Lake Blvd., Ridgecrest, and 41383

2 Big Bear Lake Blvd., Big Bear Lake.

3

24. Plaintiff Judy Cutler is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of the

4 State of California. Plaintiff Cutler is a person with a spinal cord injury who uses a wheelchair

5 for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a

6 physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California

7 Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Cutler has patronized Burger King restaurants in the

8 past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff

9 Cutler has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to those located at 1200

10 E Colorado St., Glendale, 9710 Central Ave., Montclair, 41383 Big Bear Lake Blvd., Big Bear

11 Lake, and 1666 2nd St., Norco.

12

25. Plaintiff Diane Dailey is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of the

13 State of California. Plaintiff Dailey is a person who, as a result of a motorcycle accident, uses a

14 wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

15 § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including

16 California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Dailey has patronized Burger King

17 restaurants in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future.

18 Specifically, Plaintiff Dailey has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to

19 those located at 619 W. Charter Way, Stockton, and 5315 Hopyard Rd., Pleasanton.

20

26. Plaintiff Carol Lacher is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of the

21 State of California. Plaintiff Lacher is a person with back problems and arthritis in both knees

22 who uses a wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42

23 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law,

24 including California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Lacher has patronized Burger

25 King restaurants in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future.

26 Specifically, Plaintiff Lacher has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to

27 those located at 41383 Big Bear Lake Blvd., Big Bear Lake, and 4918 W. Sunset Blvd., Los

28 Angeles.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 8

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page9 of 48

1

27. Plaintiff Bethany McClam is and has been at all times material hereto a resident

2 of the State of California. Plaintiff McClam is a person who has medical problems with her hip,

3 back, and knees and uses a wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of

4 the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable

5 California law, including California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff McClam has

6 patronized Burger King restaurants in the past and intends to continue to patronize those

7 restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff McClam has patronized Burger King restaurants

8 including but not limited to those located at 1202 W. Avenue I, Lancaster, 43627 N. 15th St.

9 W, Lancaster, and 39519 10th Street West, Palmdale.

10

28. Plaintiff Erik Nieland is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of the

11 State of California. Plaintiff Nieland is a person who has muscular dystrophy and uses a

12 wheelchair for mobility. He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102,

13 and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California

14 Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Nieland has patronized Burger King restaurants in

15 the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically,

16 Plaintiff Nieland has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to those

17 located at 1801 Decoto Rd., Union City, and 16 Southland Mall, Hayward.

18

29. Plaintiff Carol Picchi is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of the

19 State of California. Plaintiff Picchi is a person who has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair for

20 mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a

21 physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California

22 Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Picchi has patronized Burger King restaurants in the

23 past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff

24 Picchi has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to those located at 175

25 W Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas, 385 S. Kiely, San Jose, 329 N. Capitol Ave., San Jose, 261 Race

26 St., San Jose, 4040 Monterey Rd., San Jose, and 2170 Monterey Rd., San Jose.

27

30. Plaintiff William Showen is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

28 the State of California. Plaintiff Showen has diabetes who uses a wheelchair for mobility. He

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 9

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page10 of 48

1 has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as

2 that term is defined in applicable California law, including California Government Code section

3 12926. Plaintiff Showen has patronized Burger King restaurants in the past and intends to

4 continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Showen has

5 patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to those located at 111 S. Harding

6 Blvd., Roseville, and 450 Leavesley Road, Gilroy.

7

31. Plaintiff George Partida is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

8 the State of California. Plaintiff Partida is a person with quadriplegia who uses a wheelchair for

9 mobility. He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical

10 disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California Government

11 Code section 12926. Plaintiff Partida has patronized Burger King restaurants in the past and

12 intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Partida

13 has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to those located at 2101 W.

14 Whittier Blvd., La Habra, 8845 S. Painter St., Whittier, 1919 Artesia Blvd., Redondo Beach,

15 1919 Pico Blvd., Santa Monica, 1453 W Manchester Ave., Los Angeles, 215 N. Gaffey St., San

16 Pedro, 2600 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, 5540 Cherry Ave., Long Beach, 12513 E. Carson

17 St., Hawaiian Gardens, and 1666 2nd St., Norco.

18

32. Plaintiff Kitty Dean is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of the

19 State of California. Plaintiff Dean is a paraplegic and uses a wheelchair. She has a disability

20 within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is

21 defined in applicable California law, including California Government Code section 12926.

22 Plaintiff Dean has patronized Burger King restaurants in the past and intends to continue to

23 patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Dean has patronized Burger

24 King restaurants including but not limited to those located at 822 N. Johnson St., El Cajon, 728

25 W. San Marcos Blvd., San Marcos, 377 Vista Village Dr., Vista, 12427 Poway Rd., Poway,

26 and 227 S. Tremont St., Oceanside.

27

33. Plaintiff Alfred Brown is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

28 the State of California. Plaintiff Brown has various medical issues requiring him to use a

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 10

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page11 of 48

1 wheelchair. He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a

2 physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California

3 Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Brown has patronized Burger King restaurants in

4 the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically,

5 Plaintiff Brown has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to that located

6 at 1541 E. 12th St., Oakland.

7

34. Plaintiff Marsha Shining Woman is and has been at all times material hereto a

8 resident of the State of California. Plaintiff Shining Woman has various medical issues and has

9 used a manual wheelchair. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

10 § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including

11 California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Shining Woman has patronized Burger

12 King restaurants in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future.

13 Specifically, Plaintiff Shining Woman has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not

14 limited to that located at 2055 Eureka Way, Redding.

15

35. Plaintiff Goldene Springer is and has been at all times material hereto a resident

16 of the State of California. Plaintiff Springer has various medical issues and uses a scooter. She

17 has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as

18 that term is defined in applicable California law, including California Government Code section

19 12926. Plaintiff Springer has patronized Burger King restaurants in the past and intends to

20 continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Springer has

21 patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to that located at 455 N. Humboldt

22 St., Willows.

23

36. Plaintiff Daniel Xenos is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

24 the State of California. Plaintiff Xenos is a person with congestive heart failure and chronic

25 body pain who uses a scooter for mobility. He has a disability within the meaning of the ADA,

26 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law,

27 including California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Xenos has patronized Burger

28 King restaurants in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 11

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page12 of 48

1 Specifically, Plaintiff Xenos has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to

2 that located at 13446 Lincoln Way, Auburn.

3

37. Plaintiff Katherine Adams is and has been at all times material hereto a resident

4 of the State of California. Plaintiff Adams has osteoporosis, diabetes, back, and leg pains, and

5 has used a scooter when needed for approximately three years. She has a disability within the

6 meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in

7 applicable California law, including California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff

8 Adams has patronized Burger King restaurants in the past and intends to continue to patronize

9 those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Adams has patronized Burger King

10 restaurants including but not limited to that located at 34943 Newark Blvd., Newark.

11

38. Plaintiff Lynda Bowman is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

12 the State of California. Plaintiff Bowman is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility.

13 She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability

14 as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California Government Code

15 section 12926. Plaintiff Bowman has patronized Burger King restaurants in the past and intends

16 to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Bowman has

17 patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to that located at 815 Highland

18 Ave., National City.

19

39. Plaintiff Jamie Coleman is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

20 the State of California. Plaintiff Coleman has spinal stenosis and uses a manual wheelchair for

21 mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a

22 physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California

23 Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Coleman has patronized Burger King restaurants in

24 the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically,

25 Plaintiff Coleman has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to that

26 located at 8030 Greenback Ln, Citrus Heights, California, 7201 Fair Oaks Blvd, Carmichael,

27 California, 635 E Capitol Expressway, San Jose, California, the San Francisco International

28 Airport, and 6735 N Golden State Blvd, Fresno, California.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 12

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page13 of 48

1

40. Plaintiff Sheila Flaherty is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

2 the State of California. Plaintiff Flaherty is a paraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility. She

3 has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as

4 that term is defined in applicable California law, including California Government Code section

5 12926. Plaintiff Flaherty has patronized Burger King restaurants in the past and intends to

6 continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Flaherty has

7 patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to that located at 525 Pacheco

8 Blvd, Los Banos, California, and 16025 Monterey Road, Morgan Hill, California.

9

41. Plaintiff Theresa Browne-Gaulitz is and has been at all times material hereto a

10 resident of the State of California. As a result of a spinal fusion surgery, she uses a scooter and

11 manual wheelchair. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102,

12 and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California

13 Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Browne-Gaulitz has patronized Burger King

14 restaurants in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future.

15 Specifically, Plaintiff Browne-Gaulitz has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not

16 limited to that located at 601 Colusa Ave, Yuba City, 3150 Harbor Blvd, Costa Mesa, and

17 13421 Newport Ave, Tustin.

18

42. Plaintiff Lisa Lothridge is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

19 the State of California. As a result of liver failure, she uses a wheelchair and scooter when

20 needed. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical

21 disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California Government

22 Code section 12926. Plaintiff Lothridge has patronized Burger King restaurants in the past and

23 intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Lothridge

24 has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to that located at 301 West

25 Lacey Blvd., Hanford, California.

26

43. Plaintiff Diane Mackie is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

27 the State of California. As a result a degenerative disk and joint disease, she uses an electric

28 scooter for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102,

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 13

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page14 of 48

1 and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including California

2 Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Mackie has patronized Burger King restaurants in

3 the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically,

4 Plaintiff Mackie has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to that located

5 at 6960 Broadway, Lemon Grove, California.

6

44. Plaintiff Pia Parker is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of the

7 State of California. She is a paraplegic and uses a scooter and a wheelchair for mobility. She

8 has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as

9 that term is defined in applicable California law, including California Government Code section

10 12926. Plaintiff Parker has patronized Burger King restaurants in the past and intends to

11 continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Parker has

12 patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to that located at 936 Blossom Hill

13 Road, San Jose, California.

14

45. Plaintiff Coleen Rairdon-Brainard is and has been at all times material hereto a

15 resident of the State of California. As a result of bilateral knee replacement surgery and more

16 than 40 surgeries on her back and ankles, she frequently uses a manual wheelchair for mobility

17 when outside of her house. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

18 § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including

19 California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Rairdon-Brainard has patronized Burger

20 King restaurants in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future.

21 Specifically, Plaintiff Rairdon-Brainard has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not

22 limited to that located at 4253 Mission Blvd., Pacific Beach, California, and 3746 Mission Ave.,

23 Oceanside, California.

24

46. Plaintiff Geri Samuel is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of the

25 State of California. As a result of injuries suffered in a car accident, she uses a manual and a

26 power wheelchair for mobility. She has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.

27 § 12102, and a physical disability as that term is defined in applicable California law, including

28 California Government Code section 12926. Plaintiff Samuel has patronized Burger King

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 14

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page15 of 48

1 restaurants in the past and intends to continue to patronize those restaurants in the future.

2 Specifically, Plaintiff Samuel has patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to

3 that located at 711 E. Perkins Street, Ukiah, California.

4

47. Plaintiff William Sheehan is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

5 the State of California. As a result of multiple back and spinal surgeries, he uses a scooter. He

6 has a disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as

7 that term is defined in applicable California law, including California Government Code section

8 12926. Plaintiff Sheehan has patronized Burger King restaurants in the past and intends to

9 continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Sheehan has

10 patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to that located at 14600 Valley

11 Blvd, La Puente, 12736 South Avalon Blvd, Los Angeles, 3520 Sepulveda Blvd, Los Angeles

12 and 601 E Dyer Rd, Santa Ana.

13

48. Plaintiff Barry Smith is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of the

14 State of California. As a result of a spinal cord injury, he uses an electric wheelchair. He has a

15 disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that

16 term is defined in applicable California law, including California Government Code section

17 12926. Plaintiff Smith has patronized Burger King restaurants in the past and intends to

18 continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Smith has patronized

19 Burger King restaurants including but not limited to that located at 2090 West Hwy 88, Martell,

20 California.

21

49. Plaintiff David Thomas is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of

22 the State of California. As a result of multiple sclerosis, he uses a power wheelchair. He has a

23 disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that

24 term is defined in applicable California law, including California Government Code section

25 12926. Plaintiff Thomas has patronized Burger King restaurants in the past and intends to

26 continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Thomas has

27 patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to that located at 1250 9th St. in

28 Crescent City.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 15

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page16 of 48

1

50. Plaintiff John Whited is and has been at all times material hereto a resident of the

2 State of California. As a result of cerebellar ataxia, he uses a scooter for mobility. He has a

3 disability within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102, and a physical disability as that

4 term is defined in applicable California law, including California Government Code section

5 12926. Plaintiff Whited has patronized Burger King restaurants in the past and intends to

6 continue to patronize those restaurants in the future. Specifically, Plaintiff Whited has

7 patronized Burger King restaurants including but not limited to that located at 635 E Capitol

8 Expressway, San Jose, California, and 6735 N Golden State Blvd, Fresno, California.

9

51. Each of the Plaintiffs is (or was during the class period) substantially limited in

10 (at least) the major life activity of walking.

11

52. Defendant Burger King Corporation is a corporation incorporated under the

12 laws of Florida, with its principal place of business at 5505 Blue Lagoon Dr., Miami, Florida

13 33126. BKC franchises, leases (or leases to), and operates fast food hamburger restaurants,

14 principally under the Burger King brand, in California.

15

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

16

53. Plaintiffs seek to maintain this action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil

17 Procedure 23(b)(2) and/or Rule 23(b)(3). The class consists of all individuals who use

18 wheelchairs or electric scooters for mobility who, during a time period to be determined by the

19 Court, on the basis of disability, were denied the full and equal enjoyment of the goods,

20 services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations in any Remaining BKL because

21 of noncompliance with Disability Access Requirements pertaining to width of accessible parking

22 spaces and access aisles, excessive door force, lack of or obstructed accessible routes, and/or

23 customer self-service dispensers.

24

54. The class identified in paragraph 41 is believed to consist of more than a

25 thousand members who are dispersed across the State of California. Joinder of all such class

26 members in this lawsuit is impracticable.

27

55. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the class, including

28 without limitation, the following:

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 16

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page17 of 48

1

a. Whether Remaining BKLs are “public accommodations” under the ADA;

2

b. Whether Remaining BKLs are “business establishments” under the Unruh

3

Act;

4

c. Whether Remaining BKLs are “places of public accommodation” or

5

“places to which the general public is invited” under the CDPA;

6

d. Whether Defendant BKC in its Remaining BKLs denies the full and equal

7

enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or

8

accommodations to people who use wheelchairs in violation of the ADA;

9

e. Whether Defendant BKC in its Remaining BKLs denies full and equal

10

accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services to people

11

who use wheelchairs, in violation of the Unruh Act;

12

f. Whether Defendant BKC in its Remaining BKLs denies full and equal

13

access to accommodations, advantages and facilities to people who use

14

wheelchairs, in violation of the CDPA;

15

g. Whether alleged violations of the ADA create independent violations of

16

the Unruh Act and the CDPA;

17

h. What measures are legally required to bring Remaining BKLs into

18

compliance with the ADA, the Unruh Act and the CDPA;

19

i. Whether BKC’s policies and practices cause the barriers at issue in the

20

Remaining BKLs in whole or in part; and

21

j. Whether the barriers at issue in this case -- excessive door force,

22

obstructed accessible routes, and noncompliant customer self-service

23

dispensers -- violate state or federal law.

24

56. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the class. They --

25 like all other members of the plaintiff class -- use a wheelchair or scooter for mobility and claim

26 that Defendant BKC has violated the ADA, the Unruh Act, and/or the CDPA by failing to make

27 the Remaining BKLs accessible to the class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters.

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 17

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page18 of 48

1

57. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class because they

2 have retained counsel with extensive experience in litigation, including class action litigation,

3 and because Plaintiffs have no interests that conflict in any way with those of the class.

4

58. This action may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2)

5 because Defendant BKC’s violations of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA are applicable

6 to all members of the class. Therefore, an injunction requiring compliance with the ADA, the

7 Unruh Act, and the CDPA is appropriate and the primary relief sought is injunctive relief.

8

59. This action may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3)

9 because the many questions of law and fact that are common to class members clearly

10 predominate over individual questions affecting members of the class. The common issues of

11 law and fact relate to issues central to the case, such as whether Remaining BKLs are public

12 accommodations and business establishments, whether ensuring compliance with door force,

13 unobstructed accessible route, and self-service dispenser standards, as well as modifying BKC’s

14 policies and practices and other measures, are required to comply with the ADA, Unruh Act,

15 and/or the CDPA.

16

60. Judicial economy will be served by maintenance of this lawsuit as a class action

17 in that it is likely to avoid the burden that would be otherwise placed upon the judicial system by

18 the filing of numerous similar suits by people with disabilities in the State of California.

19

61. Maintaining this lawsuit as a class action will also avoid the risk of inconsistent

20 outcomes if class members were forced to bring individual actions in various forums.

21

62. There are no obstacles to effective and efficient management of this lawsuit as a

22 class action by this Court.

23

SUBCLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

24

63. Plaintiffs also seek certification of 67 subclasses under Rule 23(b)(2) and/or Rule

25 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Each subclass consists of all individuals who

26 use wheelchairs or electric scooters for mobility who, during the applicable limitations period,

27 on the basis of disability, were denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 18

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page19 of 48

1 privileges, advantages, or accommodations at each subclass restaurant because of

2 noncompliance with Disability Access Requirements.

3

64. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to certify a subclass as to each of the following

4 Remaining BKLs, represented by the stated Plaintiff or Plaintiffs:

5

a. Remaining BKL 609 located at 2101 W. Whittier Blvd., La Habra

6

represented by Plaintiff Partida.

7

b. Remaining BKL 726 located at 510 S. Euclid St., Anaheim represented

8

by Plaintiff Vallabhapurapu.

9

c. Remaining BKL 733 located at 8845 S. Painter St., Whittier represented

10

by Plaintiff Partida.

11

d. Remaining BKL 780 located at 815 Highland Ave., National City

12

represented by Plaintiff Bowman.

13

e. Remaining BKL 814 located at 822 N. Johnson St., El Cajon represented

14

by Plaintiff Dean.

15

f. Remaining BKL 817 located at 1420 Mission Ave., Oceanside

16

represented by Plaintiff Vallabhapurapu.

17

g. Remaining BKL 835 located at 3747 Rosecrans St., San Diego

18

represented by Plaintiff Jimenez.

19

h. Remaining BKL 896 located at 4253 Mission Blvd., Pacific Beach

20

represented by Plaintiff Rairdon-Brainard.

21

i. Remaining BKL 910 located at 6960 Broadway, Lemon Grove

22

represented by Plaintiff Mackie.

23

j. Remaining BKL 912 located at 1919 Artesia Blvd., Redondo Beach

24

represented by Plaintiff Partida.

25

k. Remaining BKL 916 located at 12427 Poway Rd., Poway represented by

26

Plaintiff Dean.

27

l. Remaining BKL 918 located at 1919 Pico Blvd., Santa Monica

28

represented by Plaintiffs Sarfaty, Vallabhapurapu and Partida.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 19

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page20 of 48

1

m. Remaining BKL 919 located at 3520 Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles

2

represented by Plaintiff Sheehan.

3

n. Remaining BKL 943 located at 911 W. Jefferson Blvd., Los Angeles

4

represented by Plaintiff Vallabhapurapu.

5

o. Remaining BKL 975 located at 175 W Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas

6

represented by Plaintiff Picchi.

7

p. Remaining BKL 1036 located at 21227 Sherman Way, Canoga Park

8

represented by Plaintiff Sarfaty.

9

q. Remaining BKL 1038 located at 8030 Van Nuys Blvd., Panorama City

10

represented by Plaintiff Sarfaty.

11

r. Remaining BKL 1346 located at 1453 W. Manchester Ave., Los Angeles

12

represented by Plaintiff Partida.

13

s. Remaining BKL 1417 located at 12736 South Avalon Blvd., Los Angeles

14

represented by Plaintiff Sheehan.

15

t. Remaining BKL 1549 located at 2410 N. Cedar Ave., Fresno, CA

16

represented by Plaintiff Felix.

17

u. Remaining BKL 1572 located at 385 S. Kiely, San Jose represented by

18

Plaintiffs Vallabhapurapu and Picchi.

19

v. Remaining BKL 1646 located at 3630 Tyler St., Riverside represented by

20

Plaintiff Vallabhapurapu.

21

w. Remaining BKL 1682 located at 8030 Greenback Ln., Citrus Heights

22

represented by Plaintiff Coleman.

23

x. Remaining BKL 1897 located at 215 N. Gaffey St., San Pedro

24

represented by Plaintiff Partida.

25

y. Remaining BKL 1932 located at 936 Blossom Hill Rd., San Jose

26

represented by Plaintiff Parker.

27

z. Remaining BKL 1937 located at 24530 Lyons Ave., Newhall represented

28

by Plaintiffs Sarfaty and Vallabhapurapu.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 20

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page21 of 48

1

aa. Remaining BKL 2022 located at 601 Colusa Ave., Yuba City represented

2

by Plaintiff Browne-Gaulitz.

3

bb. Remaining BKL 2119 located at 2600 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach

4

represented by Plaintiffs Vallabhapurapu and Partida.

5

cc. Remaining BKL 2132 located at 1200 E Colorado St., Glendale

6

represented by Plaintiff Cutler.

7

dd. Remaining BKL 2149 located at 3150 Harbor Blvd., Costa Mesa

8

represented by Plaintiff Browne-Gaulitz.

9

ee. Remaining BKL 2215 located at 13421 Newport Ave., Tustin

10

represented by Plaintiff Browne-Gaulitz.

11

ff. Remaining BKL 2268 located at 619 W. Charter Way, Stockton

12

represented by Plaintiffs Baker, Tyler and Dailey.

13

gg. Remaining BKL 2279 located at 329 N. Capitol Ave., San Jose

14

represented by Plaintiffs Tyler and Picchi.

15

hh. Remaining BKL 2319 located at 301 W. Lacey Blvd., Hanford

16

represented by Plaintiff Lothridge.

17

ii. Remaining BKL 2359 located at 29136 Roadside Dr., Agoura

18

represented by Plaintiff Sarfaty.

19

jj. Remaining BKL 2399 located at 5540 Cherry Ave., Long Beach

20

represented by Plaintiff Partida.

21

kk. Remaining BKL 2473 located at 1202 W. Ave. I, Lancaster represented

22

by Plaintiff McClam.

23

ll. Remaining BKL 2474 located at 111 S. Harding Blvd. in Roseville

24

represented by Plaintiff Showen.

25

mm. Remaining BKL 2495 located at 2200 Otis Dr., Alameda represented by

26

Plaintiffs Harry and Mills.

27

nn. Remaining BKL 2521 located at 139 N. China Lake Blvd., Ridgecrest

28

represented by Plaintiff Gonzalez.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 21

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page22 of 48

1

oo. Remaining BKL 2555 located at 450 Leavesley Rd, Gilroy represented

2

by Plaintiffs Showen and Walker.

3

pp. Remaining BKL 2563 located at 711 E Perkins St., Ukiah represented by

4

Plaintiff Samuel.

5

qq. Remaining BKL 2671 located at 525 Pacheco Blvd., Los Banos

6

represented by Plaintiff Flaherty.

7

rr. Remaining BKL 2795 located at 5315 Hopyard Rd., Pleasanton

8

represented by Plaintiff Dailey.

9

ss. Remaining BKL 2867 located at 16025 Monterey Road, Morgan Hill

10

represented by Plaintiff Flaherty.

11

tt. Remaining BKL 2891 located at 7201 Fair Oaks Blvd., Carmichael

12

represented by Plaintiff Coleman.

13

uu. Remaining BKL 2893 located at 9710 Central Ave., Montclair

14

represented by Plaintiff Cutler.

15

vv. Remaining BKL 2901 located at 43627 N. 15th St. W, Lancaster

16

represented by Plaintiff McClam.

17

ww. Remaining BKL 2976 located at 13446 Lincoln Way, Auburn

18

represented by Plaintiff Xenos.

19

xx. Remaining BKL 3034 located at 1801 Decoto Rd., Union City

20

represented by Plaintiff Nieland.

21

yy. Remaining BKL 3147 located at 12513 E. Carson St., Hawaiian Gardens

22

represented by Plaintiffs Vallabhapurapu and Partida.

23

zz. Remaining BKL 3157 located at 211 N. McDowell Blvd., Petaluma

24

represented by Plaintiff Kilgore.

25

aaa. Remaining BKL 3160 located at 4610 E. Kings Canyon Rd., Fresno

26

represented by Plaintiff Felix.

27

bbb. Remaining BKL 3208 located at 2055 Eureka Way, Redding represented

28

by Plaintiff Shining Woman.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 22

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page23 of 48

1

ccc. Remaining BKL 3217 located at 1571 Fitzgerald Dr., Pinole represented

2

by Plaintiff Harry.

3

ddd. Remaining BKL 3233 located at 81-779 Us Highway 111, Indio

4

represented by Plaintiff Vallabhapurapu.

5

eee. Remaining BKL 3246 located at 635 E Capitol Expressway, San Jose

6

represented by Plaintiffs Coleman and Whited.

7

fff. Remaining BKL 3316 located at 41383 Big Bear Lake Blvd., Big Bear

8

Lake represented by Plaintiffs Gonzalez, Cutler and Lacher.

9

ggg. Remaining BKL 3355 located at 680 E. San Ysidro Blvd., San Ysidro

10

represented by Plaintiff Jimenez.

11

hhh. Remaining BKL 3441 located at 455 N. Humboldt St. Willows

12

represented by Plaintiff Springer.

13

iii. Remaining BKL 3459 located at 2090 West Hwy 88, Martell represented

14

by Plaintiff Smith.

15

jjj. Remaining BKL 3530 located at 1250 9th St., Crescent City represented

16

by Plaintiff Thomas.

17

kkk. Remaining BKL 3546 located at 261 Race St., San Jose represented by

18

Plaintiffs Vallabhapurapu and Picchi.

19

lll. Remaining BKL 3580 located at 6125 Commerce Blvd., Rohnert Park

20

represented by Plaintiff Kilgore.

21

mmm. Remaining BKL 3587 located at 3746 Mission Ave., Oceanside

22

represented by Plaintiff Rairdon-Brainard.

23

nnn. Remaining BKL 3777 located at 2734 N. Tustin Ave., Orange

24

represented by Plaintiff Farber.

25

ooo. Remaining BKL 3827 located at 3098 Story Rd., San Jose represented

26

by Plaintiff Tyler.

27

ppp. Remaining BKL 4088 located at 227 S. Tremont St., Oceanside

28

represented by Plaintiff Dean.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 23

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page24 of 48

1

qqq. Remaining BKL 4405 located at 14600 Valley Blvd., La Puente

2

represented by Plaintiff Sheehan.

3

rrr. Remaining BKL 4514 located at 1901 Webster St., Alameda represented

4

by Plaintiff Mills.

5

sss. Remaining BKL 4552 located at 601 E. Dyer Rd., Santa Ana represented

6

by Plaintiff Sheehan.

7

ttt. Remaining BKL 4641 located at 728 W. San Marcos Blvd., San Marcos

8

represented by Plaintiff Dean.

9

uuu. Remaining BKL 5150 located at 10931 Los Alamitos Blvd., Los

10

Alamitos represented by Plaintiff Vallabhapurapu.

11

vvv. Remaining BKL 5869 located at 16 Southland Mall, Hayward

12

represented by Plaintiff Nieland.

13

www. Remaining BKL 6028 located at 4040 Monterey Rd., San Jose

14

represented by Plaintiff Picchi.

15

xxx. Remaining BKL 6755 located at 2170 Monterey Rd., San Jose

16

represented by Plaintiff Picchi.

17

yyy. Remaining BKL 6816 located at 1666 2nd St., Norco represented by

18

Plaintiffs Vallabhapurapu, Cutler and Partida.

19

zzz. Remaining BKL 6931 located at 2500 E. Imperial Hwy, Brea represented

20

by Plaintiff Vallabhapurapu.

21

aaaa. Remaining BKL 6947 located at 34943 Newark Blvd., Newark

22

represented by Plaintiff Adams.

23

bbbb. Remaining BKL 9913 located at 6735 N Golden State Blvd., Fresno

24

represented by Plaintiffs Coleman and Whited.

25

cccc. Remaining BKL 10567 located at 23125 Hemlock Ave., Moreno Valley

26

represented by Plaintiff Vallabhapurapu.

27

dddd. Remaining BKL 11490 located at 4918 W. Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles

28

represented by Plaintiff Lacher.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 24

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page25 of 48

1

eeee. Remaining BKL 13284 located at 1541 E. 12th St., Oakland represented

2

by Plaintiff Brown.

3

ffff. Remaining BKL 13580 located at 377 Vista Village Dr., Vista

4

represented by Plaintiff Dean.

5

gggg. Remaining BKL 15079 located at the San Francisco International Airport

6

represented by Plaintiff Coleman.

7

hhhh. Remaining BKL 16563 located at 39519 10th Street West, Palmdale

8

represented by Plaintiff McClam.

9

65. Each subclass pertains to the Remaining BKL at which the Subclass

10 Representative and members of that subclass were denied during the liability period, or are

11 currently being denied, on the basis of disability, full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,

12 facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations.

13

66. The subclasses identified in paragraph 52 are each believed to consist of between

14 forty and several hundred members who are dispersed across the State of California. Joinder of

15 all of such class members in this lawsuit is impracticable.

16

67. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to each of the subclasses,

17 including without limitation, the following:

18

a. Whether Remaining BKLs are “public accommodations” under the ADA;

19

b. Whether Remaining BKLs are “business establishments” under the Unruh

20

Act;

21

c. Whether Remaining BKLs are “places of public accommodation” or

22

“places to which the general public is invited” under the CDPA;

23

d. Whether Defendant in the Remaining BKLs denies the full and equal

24

enjoyment of their goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or

25

accommodations to people who use wheelchairs in violation of the ADA;

26

e. Whether Defendant in the Remaining BKLs denies full and equal

27

accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services to people

28

who use wheelchairs, in violation of the Unruh Act;

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 25

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page26 of 48

1

f. Whether Defendant in the Remaining BKLs denies full and equal access

2

to accommodations, advantages and facilities to people who use

3

wheelchairs, in violation of the CDPA;

4

g. Whether alleged violations of the ADA create independent violations of

5

the Unruh Act and the CDPA;

6

h. What measures are legally required to bring Remaining BKLs into

7

compliance with the ADA, the Unruh Act and the CDPA;

8

i. Whether BKC’s policies and practices cause the barriers at issue in each

9

Remaining BKL in whole or in part; and

10

j. Whether the barriers at issue in each Remaining BKL violate state or

11

federal law.

12

68. “All mobility-impaired patrons of a particular restaurant who use wheelchairs

13 face identical facilities and identical access barriers. Their common interest in assuring that all

14 the features at the particular restaurant are in compliance will predominate over any individual

15 differences among them.”

, 264 F.R.D. 557, 572 (N.D. Cal.

Castaneda v. Burger King Corp.

16 2009).

17

69. The claims of each Subclass Representative are typical of the claims of the

18 members of the subclass(es) he or she represents. They -- like all other members of the

19 subclasses -- use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility and claim that BKC violated the ADA, the

20 Unruh Act, and/or the CDPA by failing to make the Remaining BKLs accessible to the class of

21 people who use wheelchairs or scooters.

22

70. Each Subclass Representative will fairly and adequately protect the interests of

23 the subclass(es) he or she represents because he or she has retained counsel with extensive

24 experience in litigation, including class action litigation, and because no Subclass Representative

25 has interests that conflict in any way with those of the subclass he or she represents.

26

71. Each subclass meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) because BKC’s violations

27 of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA are applicable to all members of each subclass.

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 26

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page27 of 48

1 Therefore, an injunction requiring compliance with the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA is

2 appropriate and the primary relief sought is injunctive relief.

3

72. Each subclass meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) because the many

4 questions of law and fact that are common to subclass members clearly predominate over

5 individual questions affecting members of the subclass. The common issues of law and fact

6 relate to issues central to the case, such as whether Remaining BKLs are public

7 accommodations and business establishments, whether modifying Defendant’s policies and

8 practices, removing barriers, and other measures, are required to comply with the ADA, Unruh

9 Act, and/or the CDPA.

10

73. Judicial economy will be served by maintenance of these subclasses in that it is

11 likely to avoid the burden that would be otherwise placed upon the judicial system by the filing

12 of numerous similar suits by people with disabilities in the State of California.

13

74. Maintaining these subclasses will also avoid the risk of inconsistent outcomes if

14 subclass members were forced to bring individual actions in various forums.

15

75. There are no obstacles to effective and efficient management of these subclasses

16 by this Court.

17

STATEMENT OF FACTS

18

76. BKC exercises control over the development, design, remodel, alteration,

19 maintenance, and operation of the Remaining BKLs pertaining to the architectural or design

20 features at issue.

21

77. On information and belief, many or all of the Remaining BKLs were originally

22 constructed and furnished by BKC.

23

78. BKC’s construction managers oversee the construction process for new

24 construction, review plans and decor packages for remodeling, alterations and new

25 construction, and perform a final “punch list” walk through after alterations, remodeling, and

26 new construction are completed.

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 27

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page28 of 48

1

79. Additionally, BKC has a document known as a scope of work or workbench or

2 facility inspection report that operates as a checklist for alterations, remodeling and repairs. The

3 document includes the architectural or design features at issue.

4

80. Some or all of the Remaining BKLs were contractually required to be, and were,

5 remodeled in conformance with BKC’s construction and design plans and specifications. A part

6 of that remodeling is an inspection of the premises by BKC employees in order to ensure that

7 remodeled restaurant comes as close to a new Burger King restaurant as possible.

8

81. Some or all of the Remaining BKLs engaged in “re-imaging” programs,

9 performed in accordance with BKC’s designs and specifications.

10

82. All Remaining BKLs are required to comply with BKC’s Manual of Operating

11 Data (“MOD”), which contains official mandatory restaurant operating standards, specifications

12 and procedures.

13

83. The MOD contains highly detailed requirements for the operation, design,

14 signage, interior decor, equipment systems, and various other items in Burger King restaurants.

15

84. Remaining BKLs are required to be repaired and maintained in accordance with

16 standards established and controlled by BKC.

17

85. The employee training programs for managers and employees of

18 tenant/franchisees in Remaining BKLs must conform to training standards and procedures

19 prescribed by BKC.

20

86. BKC conducts scheduled and unscheduled inspections and monitoring of some

21 or all of the Remaining BKLs to ensure that they are being maintained and operated in

22 compliance with the various BKC operational and other requirements.

23

87. BKC requires precise compliance by tenant/franchisees with its design,

24 construction, remodel, alteration, operations, repair, imaging and other requirements but not

25 Disability Access Requirements.

26

88. BKC employees conduct monitoring, inspections, and/or walkthroughs of BKLs.

27 These inspections and/or walkthroughs do not involve reviews for compliance with Disability

28 Access Requirements.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 28

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page29 of 48

1

89. Since January 26, 1992, the date when the ADA regulations governing

2 alterations went into effect, some or all of the Remaining BKLs have undergone alterations, as

3 that term is used in the ADA, that affected, or could have affected, the usability of part or all of

4 those restaurants.

5

90. Since July 1, 1970, the date when California state access regulations went into

6 effect, some or all of the Remaining BKLs have undergone alterations, structural repairs and/or

7 additions, as those terms are used in California law, including without limitation Cal. Health &

8 Safety Code § 19959.

9

91. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Ron Sarfaty has patronized several Burger King

10 restaurants in California, including Remaining BKLs located at 1919 Pico Blvd., Santa Monica,

11 21227 Sherman Way, Canoga Park, 8030 Van Nuys Blvd., Panorama City, 24530 Lyons Ave.,

12 Newhall, and 29136 Roadside Dr., Agoura.

13

92. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Sarfaty has encountered numerous barriers to

14 access, including for example entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open, parking

15 lots with insufficient or inadequate accessible parking spaces, narrow or steep sidewalks/ramps,

16 inaccessible seating/dining areas, and drink machines and self-service dispensers that were

17 difficult for him to reach.

18

93. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Sarfaty full and equal access to, and

19 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

20 Sarfaty’s dignity.

21

94. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Kenneth Kilgore has patronized several Burger

22 King restaurants in California, including Remaining BKLs located at 211 N. McDowell Blvd.,

23 Petaluma and 6125 Commerce Blvd., Rohnert Park.

24

95. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Kilgore has encountered numerous barriers to

25 access, including for example entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open, parking

26 lots with insufficient or inadequate accessible parking spaces, inaccessible restrooms, narrow or

27 steep sidewalks/ramps, inaccessible seating/dining areas, and drink machines and self-service

28 dispensers that were difficult for him to reach.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 29

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page30 of 48

1

96. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Kilgore full and equal access to, and

2 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

3 Kilgore’s dignity.

4

97. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Tyrey Mills has patronized several Burger King

5 restaurants in California, including Remaining BKLs located at 1901 Webster St., Alameda and

6 2200 Otis Dr., Alameda.

7

98. At Burger King restaurants, Tyrey Mills has encountered numerous barriers to

8 access, including for parking lots with insufficient or inadequate accessible parking spaces, entry

9 and restroom doors that were very difficult to open and inaccessible seating/dining areas.

10

99. These barriers to access have denied Tyrey Mills full and equal access to, and

11 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Tyrey

12 Mills’s dignity.

13

100. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Jenilyn Jimenez has patronized several Burger King

14 restaurants in California, including Remaining BKLs located at 3747 Rosecrans St., San Diego

15 and 680 E. San Ysidro Blvd., San Ysidro.

16

101. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Jimenez has encountered numerous barriers to

17 access, including for example entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open, parking

18 lots with insufficient or inadequate accessible parking spaces, inaccessible restrooms, narrow or

19 steep sidewalks/ramps, inaccessible seating/dining areas, and drink machines and self-service

20 dispensers that were difficult for her to reach.

21

102. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Jimenez full and equal access to, and

22 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

23 Jimenez’s dignity.

24

103. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Baker has patronized several Burger King

25 restaurants in California, including a Remaining BKL located at 619 W. Charter Way in

26 Stockton.

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 30

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page31 of 48

1

104. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Baker has encountered numerous barriers to

2 access, including for example entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open, and

3 drink machines and self-service dispensers that were difficult for her to reach.

4

105. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Baker full and equal access to, and

5 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

6 Baker’s dignity.

7

106. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Farber patronized several Burger King restaurants

8 in California, including a Remaining BKL located at 2734 N. Tustin Ave. in Orange.

9

107. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Farber has encountered numerous barriers to

10 access, including for example entry doors that were very difficult to open, and parking lots with

11 insufficient or inadequate accessible parking spaces.

12

108. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Farber full and equal access to, and

13 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

14 Farber’s dignity.

15

109. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Harry has patronized several Burger King

16 restaurants in California, including Remaining BKLs located at 2200 Otis Dr., Alameda, and

17 1571 Fitzgerald Dr., Pinole.

18

110. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Harry has encountered numerous barriers to

19 access, including for example entry doors that were very difficult to open, narrow or steep

20 sidewalks/ramps, seating areas that were difficult for her to use, and drink machines and self-

21 service dispensers that were difficult for her to reach.

22

111. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Harry full and equal access to, and

23 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

24 Harry’s dignity.

25

112. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Kathryn Tyler has patronized several Burger King

26 restaurants in California, including Remaining BKLs located at 619 W. Charter Way, Stockton,

27 329 N. Capitol Ave., San Jose, and 3098 Story Rd., San Jose.

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 31

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page32 of 48

1

113. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Tyler has encountered numerous barriers to

2 access, including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open,

3 parking lots with insufficient or inadequate accessible parking spaces, narrow or steep

4 sidewalks/ramps, inaccessible seating/dining areas, and self-service dispensers that were difficult

5 for her to reach.

6

114. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Tyler full and equal access to, and

7 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

8 Tyler’s dignity.

9

115. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Mohan Vallabhapurapu has patronized several

10 Burger King restaurants in California, including Remaining BKLs located at 510 Euclid St.,

11 Anaheim, 1420 Mission Ave., Oceanside, 1919 Pico Blvd., Santa Monica, 911 W. Jefferson

12 Blvd., Los Angeles, 385 South Kiely, San Jose, 3630 Tyler St., Riverside, 24530 Lyons Ave.,

13 Newhall, 2600 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, 12513 East Carson St., Hawaiian Gardens, 81-

14 779 US Highway 111, Indio, 261 Race St., San Jose, 10931 Los Alamitos Blvd., Los Alamitos,

15 1666 2nd St., Norco, 2500 East Imperial Highway, Brea, and 23125 Hemlock Ave., Moreno

16 Valley.

17

116. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Vallabhapurapu has encountered numerous

18 barriers to access, including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to

19 open, parking lots with insufficient or inadequate accessible parking spaces, narrow or steep

20 sidewalks/ramps, inaccessible seating/dining areas and restrooms, and drink machines and self-

21 service dispensers that were difficult for him to reach.

22

117. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Vallabhapurapu full and equal access

23 to, and enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to

24 Mr. Vallabhapurapu’s dignity.

25

118. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Priscilla Walker has patronized several Burger

26 King restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 450 Leavesley Rd.,

27 Gilroy.

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 32

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page33 of 48

1

119. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Walker encountered numerous barriers to

2 access, including, for example, entry doors that were very difficult to open and counters that

3 were too high.

4

120. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Walker full and equal access to, and

5 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

6 Walker’s dignity.

7

121. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Richard Felix has patronized several Burger King

8 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 2410 N. Cedar Ave., Fresno

9 and 4610 E. Kings Canyon Rd., Fresno.

10

122. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Felix has encountered numerous barriers to

11 access, including, for example, self-service dispensers that were difficult for him to reach,

12 restroom doors that were very difficult to open, and inaccessible restroom stalls.

13

123. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Felix full and equal access to, and

14 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

15 Felix’s dignity.

16

124. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Kathleen Gonzalez has patronized several Burger

17 King restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 139 N. China Lake

18 Blvd., Ridgecrest and 41383 Big Bear Lake Blvd., Big Bear Lake.

19

125. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Gonzalez has encountered numerous barriers to

20 access, including, for example, entry doors that were very difficult to open, parking lots with

21 insufficient or inadequate accessible parking spaces, narrow or steep sidewalks/ramps,

22 inaccessible seating/dining areas and restrooms, and self-service dispensers that were difficult

23 for her to reach.

24

126. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Gonzalez full and equal access to, and

25 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

26 Gonzalez’s dignity.

27

127. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Judy Cutler has patronized several Burger King

28 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 1200 E Colorado St.,

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 33

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page34 of 48

1 Glendale, 9710 Central Ave., Montclair, 41383 Big Bear Lake Blvd., Big Bear Lake, and 1666

2 2nd St., Norco.

3

128. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Cutler has encountered numerous barriers to

4 access, including, for example, entry doors that were very difficult to open, inaccessible

5 seating/dining areas, and self-service dispensers that were difficult for her to reach.

6

129. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Cutler full and equal access to, and

7 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

8 Cutler’s dignity.

9

130. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Diane Dailey has patronized several Burger King

10 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 619 W. Charter Way,

11 Stockton and 5315 Hopyard Rd., Pleasanton.

12

131. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Dailey has encountered numerous barriers to

13 access, including, for example, entry doors that were very difficult to open, inaccessible

14 seating/dining areas and restrooms, and self-service dispensers that were difficult for her to

15 reach.

16

132. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Dailey full and equal access to, and

17 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

18 Dailey’s dignity.

19

133. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Carol Lacher has patronized several Burger King

20 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 41383 Big Bear Lake Blvd.,

21 Big Bear Lake and 4918 W. Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles.

22

134. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Lacher has encountered numerous barriers to

23 access, including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open,

24 narrow or steep sidewalks/ramps, inaccessible seating/dining areas and restrooms, and self-

25 service dispensers that were difficult for her to reach.

26

135. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Lacher full and equal access to, and

27 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

28 Lacher’s dignity.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 34

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page35 of 48

1

136. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Bethany McClam has patronized several Burger

2 King restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 1202 W. Avenue I,

3 Lancaster, 43627 N. 15th St. W, Lancaster, and 39519 10th Street West, Palmdale.

4

137. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. McClam has encountered numerous barriers to

5 access, including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open,

6 inaccessible seating/dining areas and restrooms, and self-service dispensers that were difficult

7 for her to reach.

8

138. These barriers to access have denied Ms. McClam full and equal access to, and

9 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

10 McClam’s dignity.

11

139. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Erik Nieland has patronized several Burger King

12 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 1801 Decoto Rd., Union

13 City and 16 Southland Mall, Hayward.

14

140. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Nieland has encountered numerous barriers to

15 access, including, for example, entry doors that were very difficult to open, and self-service

16 dispensers that were difficult for him to reach.

17

141. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Nieland full and equal access to, and

18 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

19 Nieland’s dignity.

20

142. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Carol Picchi has patronized several Burger King

21 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 175 W Calaveras Blvd.,

22 Milpitas, 385 S. Kiely, San Jose, 329 N. Capitol Ave., San Jose, 261 Race St., San Jose, 4040

23 Monterey Rd., San Jose and 2170 Monterey Rd., San Jose.

24

143. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Picchi has encountered numerous barriers to

25 access, including, for example, parking lots with insufficient or inadequate accessible parking

26 spaces, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open, inaccessible seating/dining

27 areas and restrooms, and self-service dispensers that were difficult for her to reach.

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 35

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page36 of 48

1

144. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Picchi full and equal access to, and

2 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

3 Picchi’s dignity.

4

145. Since October 2006, Plaintiff William Showen has patronized several Burger

5 King restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 111 S Harding Blvd.,

6 Roseville, and 450 Leavesley Road in Gilroy.

7

146. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Showen has encountered numerous barriers to

8 access, including, for example, entry doors that were very difficult to open, and self-service

9 dispensers that were difficult for him to reach.

10

147. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Showen full and equal access to, and

11 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

12 Showen’s dignity.

13

148. Since October 2006, Plaintiff George Partida has patronized several Burger King

14 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 2101 W. Whittier Blvd., La

15 Habra, 8845 S. Painter St., Whittier, 1919 Artesia Blvd., Redondo Beach, 1919 Pico Blvd.,

16 Santa Monica, 1453 W Manchester Ave., Los Angeles, 215 N. Gaffey St., San Pedro, 2600

17 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, 5540 Cherry Ave., Long Beach, 12513 E. Carson St.,

18 Hawaiian Gardens, and 1666 2nd St., Norco.

19

149. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Partida has encountered numerous barriers to

20 access, including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open,

21 inaccessible seating/dining areas and self-service dispensers that were difficult for him to reach.

22

150. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Partida full and equal access to, and

23 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

24 Partida’s dignity.

25

151. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Kitty Dean has patronized several Burger King

26 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 822 N. Johnson St., El

27 Cajon, 728 W. San Marcos Blvd., San Marcos, 377 Vista Village Dr., Vista, 12427 Poway Rd.,

28 Poway, and 227 S. Tremont St., Oceanside.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 36

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page37 of 48

1

152. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Dean has encountered numerous barriers to

2 access, including, for example, narrow or steep sidewalks/ramps, entry doors that were very

3 difficult to open, inaccessible seating/dining areas, and self-service dispensers that were difficult

4 for her to reach.

5

153. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Dean full and equal access to, and

6 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

7 Dean’s dignity.

8

154. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Alfred Brown has patronized several Burger King

9 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 1541 E. 12th St., Oakland.

10

155. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Brown has encountered numerous barriers to

11 access, including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open,

12 inaccessible seating/dining areas, and self-service dispensers that were difficult for him to reach.

13

156. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Brown full and equal access to, and

14 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

15 Brown’s dignity.

16

157. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Marsha Shining Woman has patronized several

17 Burger King restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 2055 Eureka

18 Way, Redding.

19

158. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Shining Woman has encountered barriers to

20 access, including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open, and

21 self-service dispensers that were difficult for her to reach.

22

159. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Shining Woman full and equal access

23 to, and enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to

24 Ms. Shining Woman’s dignity.

25

160. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Goldene Springer has patronized several Burger

26 King restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 455 N. Humboldt St.,

27 Willows.

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 37

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page38 of 48

1

161. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Springer has encountered barriers to access,

2 including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open, inaccessible

3 seating/dining areas and restrooms, and self-service dispensers that were difficult for her to

4 reach.

5

162. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Springer full and equal access to, and

6 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

7 Springer’s dignity.

8

163. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Daniel Xenos has patronized several Burger King

9 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 13446 Lincoln Way, Auburn.

10

164. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Xenos has encountered numerous barriers to

11 access, including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open.

12

165. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Xenos full and equal access to, and

13 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

14 Xenos’s dignity.

15

166. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Adams has patronized several Burger King

16 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 34943 Newark Blvd.,

17 Newark.

18

167. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Adams has encountered numerous barriers to

19 access, including, for example, doors that were heavy and difficult or impossible for her to open,

20 queue lines that were too narrow for her to get through, and a dining area with aisles too

21 narrow for her to get to a table.

22

168. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Adams full and equal access to, and

23 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

24 Adams’s dignity.

25

169. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Bowman has patronized several Burger King

26 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 815 Highland Ave., National

27 City.

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 38

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page39 of 48

1

170. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Bowman has encountered numerous barriers to

2 access, including, for example, doors that were heavy and difficult or impossible for her to open.

3

171. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Bowman full and equal access to, and

4 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

5 Bowman’s dignity.

6

172. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Coleman has patronized several Burger King

7 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 8030 Greenback Ln, Citrus

8 Heights, California, 7201 Fair Oaks Blvd, Carmichael, California, 635 E Capitol Expressway,

9 San Jose, California, the San Francisco International Airport, and 6735 N Golden State Blvd,

10 Fresno, California.

11

173. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Coleman has encountered numerous barriers to

12 access, including, for example, doors that were heavy and difficult or impossible for her to open,

13 inaccessible restrooms, queue lines that were too narrow for her to get through, and a dining

14 area with aisles too narrow for her to get to a table, and drinks and condiments that were out of

15 reach.

16

174. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Coleman full and equal access to, and

17 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

18 Coleman’s dignity.

19

175. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Flaherty has patronized several Burger King

20 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 525 Pacheco Blvd, Los

21 Banos, California, and 16025 Monterey Road, Morgan Hill, California.

22

176. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Flaherty has encountered numerous barriers to

23 access, including, for example, entrance doors that were heavy and difficult for her to open,

24 narrow queue lines, and heavy restroom doors.

25

177. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Flaherty full and equal access to, and

26 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

27 Flaherty’s dignity.

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 39

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page40 of 48

1

178. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Browne-Gaulitz has patronized several Burger

2 King restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 601 Colusa Ave, Yuba

3 City, 3150 Harbor Blvd, Costa Mesa, and 13421 Newport Ave, Tustin.

4

179. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Browne-Gaulitz has encountered numerous

5 barriers to access, including, for example, entrance doors that were heavy and difficult for her to

6 open, and narrow queue lines.

7

180. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Browne-Gaulitz full and equal access

8 to, and enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to

9 Ms. Browne-Gaulitz’s dignity.

10

181. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Lothridge has patronized several Burger King

11 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 301 West Lacey Blvd.,

12 Hanford, California.

13

182. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Lothridge has encountered numerous barriers to

14 access, including, for example, entrance doors that were heavy and difficult for her to open, and

15 lids that were out of reach.

16

183. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Lothridge full and equal access to, and

17 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

18 Lothridge’s dignity.

19

184. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Mackie has patronized several Burger King

20 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 6960 Broadway, Lemon

21 Grove, California.

22

185. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Mackie has encountered numerous barriers to

23 access, including, for example, including heavy entrance doors, and condiments and drinks out

24 of reach.

25

186. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Mackie full and equal access to, and

26 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

27 Mackie ’s dignity.

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 40

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page41 of 48

1

187. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Parker has patronized several Burger King

2 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 936 Blossom Hill Road, San

3 Jose, California.

4

188. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Parker has encountered numerous barriers to

5 access, including, for example, entrance doors that were heavy and difficult for her to open, and

6 narrow queue lines.

7

189. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Parker full and equal access to, and

8 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

9 Parker’s dignity.

10

190. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Rairdon-Brainard has patronized several Burger

11 King restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKLs located at 4253 Mission Blvd.,

12 Pacific Beach, California, and 3746 Mission Ave., Oceanside, California.

13

191. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Rairdon-Brainard has encountered numerous

14 barriers to access, including, for example, entrance doors that were heavy and difficult for her to

15 open, narrow queue lines, and condiments and drinks out of reach.

16

192. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Rairdon-Brainard full and equal access

17 to, and enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to

18 Ms. Rairdon-Brainard’s dignity.

19

193. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Samuel has patronized several Burger King

20 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 711 E. Perkins Street, Ukiah,

21 California.

22

194. At Burger King restaurants, Ms. Samuel has encountered numerous barriers to

23 access, including, for example, narrow queue lines.

24

195. These barriers to access have denied Ms. Samuel full and equal access to, and

25 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Ms.

26 Samuel’s dignity.

27

196. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Sheehan has patronized several Burger King

28 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 14600 Valley Blvd, La

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 41

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page42 of 48

1 Puente, 12736 South Avalon Blvd, Los Angeles, 3520 Sepulveda Blvd, Los Angeles and 601 E

2 Dyer Rd, Santa Ana.

3

197. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Sheehan has encountered numerous barriers to

4 access, including, for example, steep cross slopes in parking lots, entry and restroom doors that

5 were very difficult to open, narrow queue lines, and condiments and drinks out of reach.

6

198. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Sheehan full and equal access to, and

7 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

8 Sheehan’s dignity.

9

199. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Smith has patronized several Burger King

10 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 2090 West Hwy 88, Martell,

11 California.

12

200. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Smith has encountered numerous barriers to

13 access, including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open, and

14 narrow queue lines.

15

201. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Smith full and equal access to, and

16 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

17 Smith’s dignity.

18

202. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Thomas has patronized several Burger King

19 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 1250 9th St. in Crescent City.

20

203. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Thomas has encountered numerous barriers to

21 access, including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open.

22

204. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Thomas full and equal access to, and

23 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

24 Thomas’s dignity.

25

205. Since October 2006, Plaintiff Whited has patronized several Burger King

26 restaurants in California, including the Remaining BKL located at 635 E Capitol Expressway,

27 San Jose, California, and 6735 N Golden State Blvd, Fresno, California.

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 42

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page43 of 48

1

206. At Burger King restaurants, Mr. Whited has encountered numerous barriers to

2 access, including, for example, entry and restroom doors that were very difficult to open,

3 narrow queue lines, and condiments and drinks out of reach.

4

207. These barriers to access have denied Mr. Whited full and equal access to, and

5 enjoyment of, the goods and services of BKC, and have been frustrating and injurious to Mr.

6 Whited’s dignity.

7

208. Other potential class and subclass members report encountering similar barriers

8 at Remaining BKLs , including but not limited to barriers to accessible parking; doors that are

9 difficult to get to or to open; counters, drink machines and self-service dispensers that are hard

10 to reach; inaccessible seating/dining areas; and inaccessible restrooms.

11

209. On information and belief, BKC has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination,

12 including but not limited to the following policies or practices pertaining to Disability Access

13 Requirements:

14

a. designing, constructing, implementing and maintaining barriers that

15

discriminate against members of the putative class and subclasses with

16

knowledge of such discrimination and/or

17

b. designing, constructing, implementing and maintaining barriers that are

18

sufficiently intuitive and/or obvious as to constitute intentional conduct;

19

and/or

20

c. failing to act in the face of the substantial likelihood of harm to class and

21

subclass members’ rights protected under federal and state law.

22

210. On information and belief, Burger King utilizes standards, criteria or methods of

23 administration that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others.

24

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Americans with Disabilities Act)

25

211. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the

26

remainder of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

27

212. Title III of the ADA provides that “No individual shall be discriminated against

28

on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 43

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page44 of 48

1 privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person

2 who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C.

3 § 12182(a). Title III also prohibits an entity from “[u]tilizing standards or criteria or methods of

4 administration that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability.” 42 U.S.C.

5 § 12182(b)(2)(D)(I).

6

213. Title III of the ADA also requires that individuals and entities subject to the

7 ADA are required to comply with DOJ Standards.

8

214. Remaining BKLs are places of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C.

9 § 12181(7)(B).

10

215. Defendant is subject to Title III of the ADA because it owns, operates, and/or

11 leases the Remaining BKLs.

12

216. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class

13 and subclasses on the basis of disability. Defendant’s discriminatory conduct includes but is not

14 limited to:

15

a. Maintaining discriminatory policies and practices;

16

b. Discriminatory exclusion and/or denial of goods, services, facilities,

17

privileges, advantages, accommodations, and/or opportunities;

18

c. Provision of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and/or

19

accommodations that are not equal to those afforded non-disabled

20

individuals;

21

d. Failing to design and/or construct restaurants built for first occupancy

22

after January 26, 1993 so that they are readily accessible to and usable by

23

individuals with disabilities;

24

e. Failing to remodel or make alterations in such a manner that, to the

25

maximum extent feasible, the altered portions of the restaurants altered

26

after January 26, 1992, are readily accessible to and usable by individuals

27

with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs and scooters;

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 44

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page45 of 48

1

f. Failing to remodel or make alterations in such a manner that, to the

2

maximum extent feasible, the path of travel to the altered area and the

3

bathrooms and drink machines serving the altered area, are readily

4

accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;

5

g. Failing to remove barriers, including but not limited to queue lines,

6

counter height, door weight, parking accessibility, to individuals with

7

disabilities where it would be readily achievable to do so;

8

h. Failing to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, and/or

9

procedures as necessary to afford the goods, services, facilities,

10

privileges, advantages, and/or accommodations to individuals with

11

disabilities; and/or

12

i. Utilizing standards or criteria or methods of administration that have the

13

effect of discriminating on the basis of disability, or that perpetuate the

14

discrimination of tenant/franchisees who are subject to common

15

administrative control.

16

217. As such, Defendant discriminates and, in the absence of the injunction requested

17 herein, will continue in the future to discriminate against Plaintiffs and members of the proposed

18 class and subclasses on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods,

19 services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of Remaining

20 BKLs in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 . et seq
21 and/or its implementing regulations.

22

218. Defendant’s violations of the ADA have harmed and will continue to harm

23 Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class and subclasses in the future.

24

219. Pursuant to the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 12188,

25 Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below.

26

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Unruh Act’s Incorporation of the ADA)

27

220. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the

28

remainder of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 45

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page46 of 48

1

221. Remaining BKLs are business establishments and, as such, must comply with the

2 provisions of the Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code, § 51, et seq. (“the Unruh Act”).

3

222. The Unruh Act guarantees, inter alia, that persons with disabilities are entitled to

4 full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business

5 establishments of every kind whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the State of California. Cal.

6 Civ. Code, § 51(b).

7

223. The Unruh Act also provides that a violation of the ADA, the DOJ Standards, or

8 Title 24 is a violation of the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code, § 51(f).

9

224. Defendant has violated the Unruh Act by, inter alia, denying, or aiding or

10 inciting the denial of, Plaintiffs’ and class and subclass members’ rights to the full and equal

11 accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services offered at Remaining BKLs .

12

225. Defendant has also violated the Unruh Act by denying, or aiding or inciting the

13 denial of, Plaintiffs’ and class and subclass members’ rights to equal access arising from the

14 provisions of the California state accessibility regulations and the ADA.

15

226. Pursuant to the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in Cal. Civ. Code § 52,

16 Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below.

17

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(California Disabled Persons Act and the CDPA’s Incorporation of the ADA)

18

227. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the

19

remainder of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

20

228. Remaining BKLs are places of public accommodation and/or places to which the

21

general public is invited and, as such, are obligated to comply with the provisions of the CDPA,

22

Cal. Civ. Code, § 54, et seq.
23

229. The CDPA guarantees,

, that persons with disabilities are entitled to full

inter alia

24

and equal access, as other members of the general public, to accommodations, advantages,

25

facilities, and privileges of covered entities. Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1(a)(1).

26

230. The CDPA also provides that a violation of the ADA, the DOJ Standards, or

27

Title 24 is a violation of the CDPA. Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1(d).

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 46

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page47 of 48

1

231. Defendant has violated the CDPA by,

, denying and/or interfering with

inter alia

2 Plaintiffs’ and class and subclass members’ right to full and equal access as other members of

3 the general public to the accommodations, advantages, or facilities of Remaining BKLs.

4

232. Defendant has also violated the CDPA by denying and/or interfering with the

5 Plaintiffs’ and class and subclass members’ rights to equal access arising from the provisions of

6 the California state accessibility regulations and the ADA.

7

233. Pursuant to the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in California law,

8 including Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54.3 and 55, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as set forth below.

9

RELIEF

10

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request:

11

1. That this Court assume jurisdiction.

12

2. That this Court certify the class and/or subclasses identified above.

13

4. That this Court declare Defendant to be in violation of Title III of the Americans

14 with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq. the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code

15 § 51,

and the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code, § 54,

, as well as

et seq.

et seq.

16 their implementing regulations.

17

5. That this Court issue an injunction ordering Defendant to comply with the

18 statutes and regulations set forth herein.

19

6. That this Court award minimum statutory damages, defined as $4,000 per

20 incident of discrimination under Unruh or $1,000 per incident of discrimination under the

21 CDPA, to Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class and subclasses for violations of their

22 civil rights under state law.

23

7. That this Court award Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to

24 federal and California law.

25

8. That this Court award such additional or alternative relief as may be just, proper

26 and equitable.

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 47

Case3:11-cv-00667-WHA Document226 Filed07/02/12 Page48 of 48

1 2 Dated: JJ2uunlye , 2012 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Timothy P. Fox
Bill Lann Lee (State Bar No. 108452) Andrew Lah (State Bar No. 234580) Julia Campins (State Bar No. 238023) Joshua Davidson (State Bar No. 275168) LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C. 476 Ninth Street Oakland, CA 94607 Tel: (510) 839-6824 Fax: (510) 839-7839 blee@lewisfeinberg.com alah@lewisfeinberg.com jcampins@lewisfeinberg.com
Timothy P. Fox (State Bar No. 157750) FOX & ROBERTSON, P.C. 104 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 Tel: (303) 595-9700 TTY: (877) 595-9706 Fax: (303) 595-9705 tfox@foxrob.com
Mari Mayeda (State Bar No. 110947) P O Box 5138 Berkeley, CA 94705 Tel: (510) 917-1622 Fax: (510) 841-8115 marimayeda@earthlink.net
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [CASE NO. C11-00667-WHA (JSC)]

PAGE 48

 
 Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 1 of 57
CLOSED,E−Filing,ProSe,REFDIS,REFSET−JCS,RELATE,STAYED
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:11−cv−00667−WHA

Vallabhapurapu et al v. Burger King Corporation Assigned to: Hon. William Alsup Referred to: Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero (Settlement) Demand: $5,000,000 Cause: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/14/2011 Date Terminated: 10/31/2012 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 446 American with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Mohan Vallabhapurapu

represented by Bill Lann Lee Lewis Feinberg Lee & Jackson, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94607 510−839−6824 Fax: 510−839−7839 Email: blee@lewisfeinberg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy F. Robertson Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center 104 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 303−757−7901 Fax: 303−595−9705 Email: arobertson@creeclaw.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Lah Lewis Feinberg Lee & Jackson, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94607 510−839−6824 Fax: 510−839−7839 Email: alah@lewisfeinberg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson Lewis Feinberg Lee & Jackson, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94607 510−839−6824 Fax: 510−839−7839 Email: jdavidson@lewisfeinberg.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Campins Campins Benham−Baker, LLP 8 California Street, Suite 703 San Francisco , CA 94111 415−373−5333 Fax: 415−373−5334 Email: julia@cbbllp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mari Mayeda Attorney at Law PO Box 5138

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 2 of 57

Berkeley, CA 94705 510−917−1622 Fax: 510−841−8115 Email: marimayeda@earthlink.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy P. Fox Civil Rights Education & Enforcement Center 104 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 303−757−7901 Fax: 303−595−9705 Email: tfox@creeclaw.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Ron Sarfaty

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kenneth Kilgore

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 3 of 57

Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tyrey Mills a minor, by and through his next friend and mother Ginene Mills

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jenilyn Jimenez

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 4 of 57

Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Elizabeth Baker

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff William Farber

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 5 of 57

Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Uverda Harry

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Daniel Hernandez TERMINATED: 12/21/2011

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 6 of 57

Plaintiff Kathryn Tyler
Plaintiff Priscilla Walker
Plaintiff Richard Felix

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 7 of 57

Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Kathleen Gonzalez

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Judy Cutler

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 8 of 57

Plaintiff Diane Dailey
Plaintiff Carol Lacher

Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 9 of 57

Plaintiff Bethany McClam
Plaintiff Erik Nieland

Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 10 of 57

Plaintiff Carol Picchi
Plaintiff William Showen

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 11 of 57

Plaintiff Anne Casey TERMINATED: 12/21/2011
Plaintiff George Partida

Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 12 of 57

Plaintiff Kitty Dean
Plaintiff Alfred Brown

Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 13 of 57

Plaintiff Marsha Shining Woman
Plaintiff Goldene Springer

Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 14 of 57

Plaintiff Daniel Xenos
Plaintiff P. A. & B. Investments, Inc. TERMINATED: 07/02/2012 Plaintiff Teresa Brown Gaulitz
Plaintiff Jamie Coleman

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy F. Robertson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mari Mayeda (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 15 of 57

Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sheila Flaherty

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Lisa Lothridge

represented by Andrew Lah (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Campins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 16 of 57

Plaintiff Diane Mackie
Plaintiff Pia Parker
Plaintiff Coleen Rairdon Brainard

represented by Andrew Lah (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew Lah (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew Lah (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 17 of 57

Plaintiff Geri Samuel
Plaintiff William Sheehan

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew Lah (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew Lah (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Campins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy P. Fox

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 18 of 57

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Barry Smith

represented by Andrew Lah (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Campins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff David Thomas

represented by Andrew Lah (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Campins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff John Whited

represented by Andrew Lah (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bill Lann Lee

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 19 of 57

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Campins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Katherine Adams

represented by Andrew Lah (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Campins (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy P. Fox (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Lynda Bowman

represented by Bill Lann Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Lah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua Toshio Kano Davidson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Campins (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Timothy P. Fox

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 20 of 57
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Burger King Corporation

represented by Adam Friedenberg Glynn & Finley, LLP One Walnut Creek Center 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 210−2800 Fax: (925) 945−1975 Email: afriedenberg@glynnfinley.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Evan Perlman Genovese Joblove & Battista PA Miami Tower 100 S.E. 2nd Street 44th Floor Miami, FL 33131 305−349−2300 Fax: 305−349−2310 Email: jperlman@gjb−law.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin J. Keane Genovese Joblove & Battista P.A. Miami Tower 100 Southeast 2nd Street 44th Floor Miami, FL 33131 305−349−2300 Fax: 305−349−2310 Email: mkeane@gjb−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Anne Rodgers Glynn & Finley, LLP One Walnut Creek Center 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 210−2847 Fax: (925) 945−1975 Email: mrodgers@glynnfinley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D Joblove Genovese Joblove & Battista PA Miami Tower 100 S.E. 2nd Street 44th Floor Miami, FL 33131 305−349−2300 Fax: 305−349−2310 Email: mjoblove@gjb−law.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Ann Bolson Baarts Attorney at Law

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 21 of 57
Seyfarth Shaw LLP 560 Mission Street Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94105 415−397−2823 Fax: 415−397−8549 Email: nbolsonbaarts@seyfarth.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Abraham Cownan Glynn & Finley, LLP 100 Pringle Avenue Suite 500 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925−210−2800 Fax: 925−945−1975 Email: pcownan@glynnfinley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
3rd party defendant 952 Enterprises LLC
3rd party defendant Antelope Valley Restaurants, Inc.
3rd party defendant Carolyn P. Arnold
3rd party defendant Masroor A. Batla
3rd party defendant Tallat Batla
3rd party defendant Batla Restaurant Group, Inc.
3rd party defendant Bayshore Foods Inc
3rd party defendant Beach City Inc
3rd party defendant Chris G. Bredesen
3rd party defendant Shakeb H. Zuberi
3rd party defendant Brening Enterprises Inc
3rd party defendant Brening Enterprises LP
3rd party defendant Brening Enterprises No. 3 Inc

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 22 of 57
3rd party defendant C&L 28 Inc
3rd party defendant C&R Foods Inc
3rd party defendant C&S Foods Inc
3rd party defendant Card Investment, Incorporated
3rd party defendant Centennial Restaurants LLC
3rd party defendant Robert T. Chiu
3rd party defendant Chu Investment Inc
3rd party defendant Charles D. Cobb
3rd party defendant Deep Valley Enterprises Incorporated
3rd party defendant Dhillon ABS Investment Inc
3rd party defendant Vincent F. Eupierre
3rd party defendant Eureka Fortune Inc
3rd party defendant Gate 74 Inc
3rd party defendant Albert Gonzalez
3rd party defendant David Lynwood Hairston
3rd party defendant Elham Hakimianpour
3rd party defendant Herbert Hakimianpour
3rd party defendant Robert Hakimianpour

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 23 of 57

3rd party defendant Violet Hakimianpour 3rd party defendant Gussie Hampton 3rd party defendant Lynn A. Hartje 3rd party defendant Dominic Ho 3rd party defendant J and A Food Service Inc 3rd party defendant Mangen Group Inc 3rd party defendant Metro Management Systems Inc 3rd party defendant Midas Enterprises Corporation 3rd party defendant Syed Musavi 3rd party defendant Roy D. Newport
3rd party defendant Patel Brothers Inc 3rd party defendant Puja Restaurant Group Inc 3rd party defendant Larry D. Ralston 3rd party defendant Reddy Holly LP 3rd party defendant SJ Quickbite Inc 3rd party defendant Shenandoah Valley Enterprises Inc

represented by Megan Oliver−Thompson Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market St. 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−777−3200 Fax: 415−541−9366 Email: moliverthompson@hansonbridgett.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 24 of 57

3rd party defendant Tri−City Foods Inc 3rd party defendant Jose Villaflor 3rd party defendant Lorraine D. Whitehurst 3rd party defendant Richard G. Whitehurst Miscellaneous Newport Plaintiffs
3rd party plaintiff Burger King Corporation

represented by Kurt A. Franklin Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−777−3200 Fax: 415−541−9366 Email: kfranklin@hansonbridgett.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard James Stratton Hanson Bridgett LLP 425 Market Street 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 415−777−3200 Fax: 415−541−9366 Email: rstratton@hansonbridgett.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adam Friedenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Evan Perlman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin J. Keane (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maureen Anne Rodgers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D Joblove (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nicole Ann Bolson Baarts (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Abraham Cownan

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 25 of 57
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. 3rd party defendant Angela Chen
3rd party defendant Chris Chen 3rd party defendant Dara Dejbakhsh
3rd party defendant Arcadia Restaurant Ventures, LLC
3rd party defendant Danabo Arcadia Restaurant Ventures LLC
3rd party defendant Howard Mangen 3rd party defendant Evergreen Restaurant Group 3rd party defendant Evergreen Restaurant Group California Inc 3rd party defendant Benjamin Kuo−An Chang TERMINATED: 10/31/2011 3rd party defendant Herman Y Li 3rd party defendant Herbert Y. Li 3rd party defendant Daniel Y. Chu 3rd party defendant

represented by Megan Oliver−Thompson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nima Nami 19800 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92612 949−610−8535 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nima Nami (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nima Nami (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 26 of 57

Chi Wai Low

3rd party defendant Siu May Li

3rd party defendant Huei L. Chang

3rd party defendant Roger Y Li

3rd party defendant Andrew J. Cherng

3rd party defendant Marshall J. Chuang

3rd party defendant Chung Ching Chang

3rd party defendant Patsy P. Chu

3rd party defendant Robert K. Swift

3rd party defendant Diemar E. Schott

3rd party defendant Jagdish R. Amin

3rd party defendant Wilawan Foo

3rd party defendant
Geboy, Inc. TERMINATED: 12/20/2011

3rd party defendant
Geboy de Tijuana SA de CV TERMINATED: 12/20/2011

3rd party defendant
Luis Boyance TERMINATED: 12/20/2011

3rd party defendant
Jorge Finkelberg TERMINATED: 12/20/2011

represented by Jorge Finkelberg 4800 Marlborough Drive San Diego, CA 92116 858−663−2584 PRO SE

3rd party defendant

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 27 of 57

Hakimianpour Santa Monica Group, L.L.C.

3rd party defendant Cimm's Incorporated

3rd party defendant Lawrence P. Cimmarusti

3rd party defendant Ralph J. Cimmarusti

3rd party defendant
Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II, LLC

represented by Martin H. Orlick Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Fifth Floor San Francisco, CA 94111−3824 415−398−8080 Fax: 415−398−5584 Email: mho@jmbm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

3rd party defendant Jerry M. Comstock

represented by Martin H. Orlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

3rd party defendant SRAC Holdings I, Inc.

represented by Martin H. Orlick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

3rd party defendant Progressive Management Services, Inc.

3rd party defendant Paragon Management Services, Inc.

3rd party defendant Ella A. Smothers

3rd party defendant William Sein Chow

3rd party defendant Rituraj Investments, Inc.

3rd party defendant Harshraj Ghai

3rd party defendant Charanjit Ghai

3rd party defendant

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 28 of 57
Amarjeet Ghai
3rd party defendant Brening Enterprises No. 4, Inc.
3rd party defendant Richard A. Brening, Jr.
3rd party defendant Bonita B. Brening
3rd party defendant Abdul R. Khan
3rd party defendant HKR Restaurants, Inc. n/k/a WD Restaurant #1937
3rd party defendant David C. Wurts
3rd party defendant Pravin F. Patel
3rd party defendant HG Foods LLC
3rd party defendant Gary H. Geiger
3rd party defendant Terry O. Hartshorn
3rd party defendant Gregory R. Brening
3rd party defendant SCOTT A BRENING
3rd party defendant Leslie Broadland
3rd party defendant John D. Mascali
3rd party defendant Kern Desert Foods, Inc.
3rd party defendant Joseph C. Kruger
3rd party defendant Vicky Kruger
3rd party defendant

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 29 of 57

Granya, Inc.

3rd party defendant Mary Ann Mallis

3rd party defendant Paul L. Mallis

3rd party defendant Union Foods Corp.

3rd party defendant Susan A. Villaflor

3rd party defendant Joseph Rubin

3rd party defendant Donna Rubin

3rd party defendant Joseph K. Wong

3rd party defendant Balbir S. Dhillon

3rd party defendant Willie C. Cook

represented by Amira Aswada Jackmon 2342 Shattuck Avenue #816 Berkeley, CA 94704 510−868−0638 Fax: 510−981−1646 Email: amira@jackmonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

3rd party defendant Desert Restaurant Ventures, LLC

represented by Nima Nami (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

3rd party defendant B−Y−J Partners

3rd party defendant Thomas E. Yeager

3rd party defendant Peggy E. Yeager

3rd party defendant
JimRich Restaurant Investment Corporation

3rd party defendant

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 30 of 57

James W. Stinnett

3rd party defendant Judy G. Stinnett

3rd party defendant Richard H. Agins

3rd party defendant Donna B. Agins

3rd party defendant Dean Frank Busch, Sr.

3rd party defendant Nancy Mae Busch

3rd party defendant Hansa V. Chhaddva

3rd party defendant Lynn R. McNeely

3rd party defendant Byron Crossen

3rd party defendant Kyle Redding

3rd party defendant David Knox

3rd party defendant Todd Knox

3rd party defendant Nasser Aliabadi

3rd party defendant Wai−Mau Szeto

3rd party defendant David J. Davis

3rd party defendant Francisco Foods, Inc.

represented by David Ray Calderon Barth Berus & Calderon LLP 333 City Boulevard West Suite 2050 Orange, CA 92868−2944 714−704−4828 Fax: 714−704−1513 Email: dcalderon@hmbfinlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 31 of 57

Armen Garabedian Scoll & Associates 333 City Blvd. W., Suite 250 Orange, CA 92868 7149221300 Fax: 7149221329 Email: agarabed@travelers.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

3rd party defendant Geoffrey A. Jones

represented by David Ray Calderon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Armen Garabedian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

3rd party defendant Beatrice E. Kubu

represented by David Ray Calderon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Armen Garabedian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

3rd party defendant Stanley Kubu

3rd party defendant Catherine A. Kubu

represented by David Ray Calderon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Armen Garabedian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

3rd party defendant Susan Kubu−Jones

represented by David Ray Calderon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Armen Garabedian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

3rd party defendant Carol K. McManus

represented by David Ray Calderon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Armen Garabedian (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 32 of 57

3rd party defendant John D. Gantes 3rd party defendant George J. Gantes 3rd party defendant Allan B. Gantes 3rd party defendant OC Burger Partners, LLC 3rd party defendant Burger InvestCo, LLC 3rd party defendant John Yee
3rd party defendant Reeddy, Inc. 3rd party defendant Roland Eddy 3rd party defendant Piyas Corporation 3rd party defendant Vetit Piyas 3rd party defendant Cal Burg, Inc. 3rd party defendant Hiten Patel 3rd party defendant Vimal Patel 3rd party defendant Jayant F. Patel 3rd party defendant Asit Vyas 3rd party defendant SFO EQUITIES, LLC 3rd party defendant Jae Chung

represented by Megan Oliver−Thompson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 33 of 57

3rd party defendant Jose F. Placencia

3rd party defendant Clifton Shigaki

represented by David Ray Calderon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

3rd party defendant P. A. & B. Investments, Inc.

Date Filed 02/14/2011
02/14/2011 02/14/2011 02/14/2011 02/17/2011 02/18/2011 02/22/2011
03/09/2011 03/14/2011 03/14/2011

# Docket Text
1 Class Action COMPLAINT against Burger King Corporation (Filing fee $350, receipt number 44611006451). Filed by Richard Felix, Ron Sarfaty, George Partida, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Bethany McClam, Diane Dailey, Carol Lacher, Alfred Brown, Kenneth Kilgore, Erik Nieland, Kathryn Tyler, Daniel Xenos, Marsha Shining Woman, Anne Casey, Jenilyn Jimenez, Priscilla Walker, Carol Picchi, Goldene Springer, Kitty Dean, Judy Cutler, Daniel Hernandez, William Farber, Kathleen Gonzalez, William Showen, Uverda Harry, Tyrey Mills, Elizabeth Baker. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2011) Modified on 2/15/2011 (cjl, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/18/2011: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2011)
2 Summons Issued as to Burger King Corporation. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2011) (kk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/15/2011)
3 Scheduling Order for Cases Asserting Denial of Right of Access under Americans with Disabilities Act. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2011) (Entered: 02/15/2011)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2011) (Entered: 02/15/2011)
4 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 02/17/2011. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2011) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
5 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu no longer assigned to the case.Signed by Executive Committee on 2/18/11. (kk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2011) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Elizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS & COMPLAINT (Campins, Julia) (Filed on 2/22/2011) (Entered: 02/22/2011)
7 STIPULATION To Extend Time Within Which to Respond to Complaint filed by Burger King Corporation, Mohan Vallabhapurapu. (Friedenberg, Adam) (Filed on 3/9/2011) (Entered: 03/09/2011)
8 ORDER RELATING CASE. Signed by Judge William H. Alsup on 3/14/11. (bjtS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2011) (Entered: 03/14/2011)
9 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Jonathan E. Perlman ( Filing fee $ 275, receipt number 34611057457.) filed by Burger King Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(mjj2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2011) Modified on 3/14/2011 (mjj2, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/14/2011)

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 34 of 57

03/14/2011

10 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Michael D. Joblove ( Filing fee $ 275, receipt number 34611057458.) filed by Burger King Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(mjj2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2011) (Entered: 03/14/2011)

03/15/2011

Case reassigned to Hon. William Alsup. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte no longer assigned to the case. (ha, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2011) Modified on 3/16/2011 (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/15/2011)

03/15/2011

11 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF JONATHAN PERLMAN PRO HAC VICE by Judge Alsup granting 9 Motion for Pro Hac Vice (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2011) (Entered: 03/15/2011)

03/15/2011

12 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF MICHAEL JOBLOVE PRO HAC VICE by Judge Alsup granting 10 Motion for Pro Hac Vice (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2011) (Entered: 03/15/2011)

03/16/2011

13 CLERKS NOTICE Scheduling Initial CMC on Reassignment. Case Management Statement due by 8/11/2011. Case Management Conference set for 8/18/2011 03:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2011). (Entered: 03/16/2011)

03/16/2011

14 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER TO ORDER SETTING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE re 13 Clerks Notice. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 11/20/08. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2011) (Entered: 03/16/2011)

03/16/2011

15 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint and to Add Franchisees/Lessees as Additional Defendants filed by Burger King Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 4/21/2011 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 3/16/2011) Modified on 3/17/2011 (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/16/2011)

03/16/2011

16 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 15 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint and to Add Franchisees/Lessees as Additional Defendants filed byBurger King Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B", # 3 Exhibit "C", # 4 Exhibit "D", # 5 Exhibit "E", # 6 Exhibit "F")(Related document(s) 15 ) (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 3/16/2011) (Entered: 03/16/2011)

03/16/2011

17 Proposed Order re 16 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 15 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint and to Add Franchisees/Lessees as Additional Defendants by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 3/16/2011) (Entered: 03/16/2011)

03/22/2011

18 STIPULATION re 15 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint and to Add Franchisees/Lessees as Additional Defendants [Alter Hearing Date] by Burger King Corporation. (Rodgers, Maureen) (Filed on 3/22/2011) (Entered: 03/22/2011)

03/22/2011

20 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice − Amy F. Robertson ( Filing fee $ 275, receipt number 34611057772) filed by Mohan Vallabhapurapu. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2011) (Entered: 03/23/2011)

03/23/2011

19 ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE ON MOTION TO DISMISS Motion Hearing set for 5/5/2011 02:00 PM before Hon. William Alsup.. Signed by Judge Alsup on March 23, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/23/2011) (Entered: 03/23/2011)

03/23/2011

21 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF AMY ROBERTSON PRO HAC VICE by Judge Alsup granting 20 Motion for Pro Hac Vice (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/23/2011) (Entered: 03/23/2011)

03/31/2011 22 Certificate of Interested Entities by Burger King Corporation (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 3/31/2011) (Entered: 03/31/2011)

03/31/2011 23 NOTICE by Burger King Corporation of Filing Corrected Exhibits to Declaration of Thomas G. Archer (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 3/31/2011) (Entered: 03/31/2011)

03/31/2011

24 Certificate of Interested Entities by Elizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 35 of 57

03/31/2011
03/31/2011 03/31/2011 04/13/2011 04/13/2011 04/13/2011 04/13/2011 04/13/2011

Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PARTIES (Campins, Julia) (Filed on 3/31/2011) (Entered: 03/31/2011)
25 MOTION To Suspend General Order No. 56 PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SUSPEND GENERAL ORDER NO. 56 filed by Elizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. Motion Hearing set for 5/5/2011 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. (Lah, Andrew) (Filed on 3/31/2011) (Entered: 03/31/2011)
26 Declaration of Timothy P. Fox DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY P. FOX IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS 25 MOTION TO SUSPEND GENERAL ORDER NO. 56 filed byDiane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Lah, Andrew) (Filed on 3/31/2011) Modified on 4/1/2011 (mjj2S, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/31/2011)
27 Proposed Order re 25 [PROPOSED] ORDER TO SUSPEND GENERAL ORDER NO. 56 by Elizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Lah, Andrew) (Filed on 3/31/2011) Modified on 4/1/2011 (mjj2S, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/31/2011)
28 RESPONSE (re 15 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint and to Add Franchisees/Lessees as Additional Defendants ) SPECIALLY APPEARING FRANCHISEES OPPOSITION TO BURGER KING CORPORATIONS MOTION TO ADD FRANCHISEES/LESSEES AS ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS filed byNewport Plaintiffs. (Franklin, Kurt) (Filed on 4/13/2011) (Entered: 04/13/2011)
29 Declaration of Kurt A. Franklin in Support of 28 Opposition/Response to Motion, DECLARATION OF KURT A. FRANKLIN IN SUPPORT OF SPECIALLY APPEARING FRANCHISEES OPPOSITION TO BURGER KING CORPORATIONS MOTION TO ADD FRANCHISEES/LESSEES AS ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS filed byNewport Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C−G)(Related document(s) 28 ) (Franklin, Kurt) (Filed on 4/13/2011) (Entered: 04/13/2011)
30 Declaration in Support of 28 Opposition/Response to Motion, DECLARATION OF RAKESH PATEL IN SUPPORT OF SPECIALLY APPEARING FRANCHISEES/LESSEES OPPOSITION TO BURGER KING CORPORATIONS MOTION TO ADD FRANCHISEES/LESSEES AS ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS filed byNewport Plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (Franklin, Kurt) (Filed on 4/13/2011) (Entered: 04/13/2011)
31 Declaration in Support of 28 Opposition/Response to Motion, DECLARATION OF JOE RUBIN IN SUPPORT OF SPECIALLY APPEARING FRANCHISEES/LESSEES OPPOSITION TO BURGER KING CORPORATIONS MOTION TO ADD FRANCHISEES/LESSEES AS ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS filed byNewport Plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (Franklin, Kurt) (Filed on 4/13/2011) (Entered: 04/13/2011)
32 Declaration in Support of 28 Opposition/Response to Motion, DECLARATION OF WILLIE C. COOK IN SUPPORT OF SPECIALLY APPEARING FRANCHISEES/LESSEES OPPOSITION TO BURGER KING CORPORATIONS MOTION TO ADD FRANCHISEES/LESSEES AS ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS filed byNewport Plaintiffs. (Related document(s) 28 ) (Franklin, Kurt) (Filed on 4/13/2011) (Entered: 04/13/2011)

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 36 of 57

04/14/2011

33 RESPONSE (re 15 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint and to Add Franchisees/Lessees as Additional Defendants ) filed byElizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Campins, Julia) (Filed on 4/14/2011) (Entered: 04/14/2011)

04/14/2011

34 Declaration of Julia Campins in Support of 33 Opposition/Response to Motion,, filed byElizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Related document(s) 33 ) (Campins, Julia) (Filed on 4/14/2011) (Entered: 04/14/2011)

04/15/2011

35 RESPONSE (re 25 MOTION To Suspend General Order No. 56 PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SUSPEND GENERAL ORDER NO. 56 ) Defendant Burger King Corporation's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Suspend General Order No. 56 filed byBurger King Corporation. (Friedenberg, Adam) (Filed on 4/15/2011) (Entered: 04/15/2011)

04/21/2011

36 REPLY (re 25 MOTION To Suspend General Order No. 56 PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SUSPEND GENERAL ORDER NO. 56 ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SUSPEND GENERAL ORDER NO. 56 filed byElizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Lah, Andrew) (Filed on 4/21/2011) (Entered: 04/21/2011)

04/21/2011

37 REPLY (re 15 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint and to Add Franchisees/Lessees as Additional Defendants ); Reply to Specially Appearing Franchisees' Opposition, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 4/21/2011) Modified on 4/22/2011 (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/21/2011)

04/21/2011

38 REPLY (re 15 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint and to Add Franchisees/Lessees as Additional Defendants); Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss Complaint, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 4/21/2011) Modified on 4/22/2011 (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/21/2011)

04/27/2011

39 ORDER ADVANCING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case Management Conference set for 5/5/2011 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Alsup on April 27, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2011) (Entered: 04/27/2011)

05/02/2011

40 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Elizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Campins, Julia) (Filed on 5/2/2011) (Entered: 05/02/2011)

05/05/2011

44 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 5/5/2011 before Wiliiam Alsup (Date Filed: 5/5/2011), Motion Hearing held on 5/5/2011 before Wiliiam Alsup (Date Filed: 5/5/2011) re 15 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint and to Add Franchisees/Lessees as Additional Defendants filed by Burger King Corporation, 25 MOTION To Suspend General Order No. 56. Jury Selection set for 9/24/2012 07:30 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. (Court Reporter Connie Kuhl.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/5/2011) (Entered: 05/10/2011)

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 37 of 57

05/06/2011

41 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO SUSPEND GENERAL ORDER NO. 56, Motions terminated: 25 MOTION To Suspend General Order No. 56 PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SUSPEND GENERAL ORDER NO. 56 filed by Daniel Xenos, Diane Dailey, Elizabeth Baker, Priscilla Walker, Tyrey Mills, William Farber, Jenilyn Jimenez, Ron Sarfaty, Carol Picchi, Goldene Springer, Marsha Shining Woman, Kitty Dean, Bethany McClam, Carol Lacher, Kenneth Kilgore, Daniel Hernandez, George Partida, Richard Felix, William Showen, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Erik Nieland, Uverda Harry, Alfred Brown, Kathleen Gonzalez, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Kathryn Tyler, 15 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint and to Add Franchisees/Lessees as Additional Defendants filed by Burger King Corporation. Signed by Judge Alsup on May 6, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2011) (Entered: 05/06/2011)

05/06/2011

42 NOTICE REGARDING FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED FOR ANY PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT. Signed by Judge Alsup on May 6, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2011) (Entered: 05/06/2011)

05/06/2011

43 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Class certification motion must be filed by 11/17/2011 for hearing on 12/22/2011. Discovery due by 5/31/2012. Jury Trial set for 9/24/2012 07:30 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Motions due by 7/5/2012. Pretrial Conference set for 9/10/2012 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 5/5/2011. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2011) (Entered: 05/06/2011)

05/31/2011

45 ANSWER to Complaint, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT against Angela Chen, Chris Chen, Dara Dejbakhsh, Arcadia Restaurant Ventures, LLC, Danabo Arcadia Restaurant Ventures LLC, Howard Mangen, Evergreen Restaurant Group, Evergreen Restaurant Group California Inc, Benjamin Kuo−An Chang, Herman Y Li, Herbert Y. Li, Daniel Y. Chu, Chi Wai Low, Siu May Li, Huei L. Chang, Roger Y Li, Andrew J. Cherng, Marshall J. Chuang, Chung Ching Chang, Patsy P. Chu, Robert K. Swift, Diemar E. Schott, Jagdish R. Amin, Wilawan Foo, Geboy, Inc., Geboy de Tijuana SA de CV, Luis Boyance, Jorge Finkelberg, Hakimianpour Santa Monica Group, L.L.C., Cimm's Incorporated, Lawrence P. Cimmarusti, Ralph J. Cimmarusti, Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II, LLC, Jerry M. Comstock, SRAC Holdings I, Inc., Progressive Management Services, Inc., Paragon Management Services, Inc., Ella A. Smothers, William Sein Chow, Rituraj Investments, Inc., Harshraj Ghai, Charanjit Ghai, Amarjeet Ghai, Brening Enterprises No. 4, Inc., Richard A. Brening, Jr., Bonita B. Brening, Abdul R. Khan, HKR Restaurants, Inc. n/k/a WD Restaurant #1937, David C. Wurts, Pravin F. Patel, HG Foods LLC, Gary H. Geiger, Terry O. Hartshorn, Gregory R. Brening, SCOTT A BRENING, Leslie Broadland, John D. Mascali, Kern Desert Foods, Inc., Joseph C. Kruger, Vicky Kruger, Granya, Inc., Mary Ann Mallis, Paul L. Mallis, Union Foods Corp., Susan A. Villaflor, Joseph Rubin, Donna Rubin, Joseph K. Wong, Balbir S. Dhillon, Willie C. Cook, Desert Restaurant Ventures, LLC, B−Y−J Partners, Thomas E. Yeager, Peggy E. Yeager, JimRich Restaurant Investment Corporation, P. A. & B. Investments, Inc., James W. Stinnett, Judy G. Stinnett, Richard H. Agins, Donna B. Agins, Dean Frank Busch, Sr, Nancy Mae Busch, Hansa V. Chhaddva, Lynn R. McNeely, Byron Crossen, Kyle Redding, David Knox, Todd Knox, Nasser Aliabadi, Wai−Mau Szeto, David J. Davis, Francisco Foods, Inc., Geoffrey A. Jones, Beatrice E. Kubu, Stanley Kubu, Catherine A. Kubu, Susan Kubu−Jones, Carol K. McManus, John D. Gantes, George J. Gantes, Allan B. Gantes, OC Burger Partners, LLC, Burger InvestCo, LLC, John Yee, Reeddy, Inc., Roland Eddy, Piyas Corporation, Vetit Piyas, Cal Burg, Inc., Hiten Patel, Vimal Patel, Jayant F. Patel, Asit Vyas, SFO EQUITIES, LLC, Jae Chung, Jose F. Placencia, Clifton Shigaki byBurger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 5/31/2011) (Entered: 05/31/2011)

06/10/2011

46 NOTICE by Burger King Corporation re 45 Answer to Complaint, Third Party Complaint, (Proposed Summonses for Third Party Defendants) (Attachments: # 1 Summons Part 2 (proposed))(Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 6/10/2011) Modified on 6/13/2011 (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/10/2011)

06/14/2011

47 Summons Issued as to Masroor A. Batla, Tallat Batla, Batla Restaurant Group, Inc., Bayshore Foods Inc, Beach City Inc, Luis Boyance, Chris G. Bredesen, Bonita B. Brening, Gregory R. Brening, Brening Enterprises LP, Brening Enterprises No. 3 Inc, Brening Enterprises No. 4, Inc., Richard A. Brening, Jr., Leslie Broadland, Burger

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 38 of 57

06/16/2011
07/06/2011 07/12/2011

InvestCo, LLC, Dean Frank Busch, Sr, Nancy Mae Busch, C&L 28 Inc, C&R Foods Inc, C&S Foods Inc, Cal Burg, Inc., Card Investment, Incorporated, Centennial Restaurants LLC, Benjamin Kuo−An Chang, Chung Ching Chang, Huei L. Chang, Angela Chen, Chris Chen, Andrew J. Cherng, Hansa V. Chhaddva, Robert T. Chiu, William Sein Chow, Daniel Y. Chu, Patsy P. Chu, Chu Investment Inc, Marshall J. Chuang, Jae Chung, Cimm's Incorporated, Lawrence P. Cimmarusti, Ralph J. Cimmarusti, Charles D. Cobb, Willie C. Cook, Byron Crossen, Danabo Arcadia Restaurant Ventures LLC, David J. Davis, Deep Valley Enterprises Incorporated, Dara Dejbakhsh, Desert Restaurant Ventures, LLC, Balbir S. Dhillon, Dhillon ABS Investment Inc, Roland Eddy, Vincent F. Eupierre, Eureka Fortune Inc, Evergreen Restaurant Group, Evergreen Restaurant Group California Inc, Jorge Finkelberg, Wilawan Foo, Francisco Foods, Inc., 952 Enterprises LLC, Donna B. Agins, Richard H. Agins, Nasser Aliabadi, Jagdish R. Amin, Antelope Valley Restaurants, Inc., Arcadia Restaurant Ventures, LLC, Carolyn P. Arnold, B−Y−J Partners, SCOTT A BRENING, Allan B. Gantes, George J. Gantes, John D. Gantes, Gate 74 Inc, Geboy de Tijuana SA de CV, Geboy, Inc., Gary H. Geiger, Amarjeet Ghai, Charanjit Ghai, Harshraj Ghai, Albert Gonzalez, Granya, Inc., HG Foods LLC, HKR Restaurants, Inc. n/k/a WD Restaurant #1937, Elham Hakimianpour, Herbert Hakimianpour, Robert Hakimianpour, Violet Hakimianpour, Hakimianpour Santa Monica Group, L.L.C., Lynn A. Hartje, Terry O. Hartshorn, Dominic Ho, J and A Food Service Inc, JimRich Restaurant Investment Corporation, Geoffrey A. Jones, Kern Desert Foods, Inc., Abdul R. Khan, David Knox, Todd Knox, Joseph C. Kruger, Vicky Kruger, Beatrice E. Kubu, Catherine A. Kubu, Stanley Kubu, Susan Kubu−Jones, Herbert Y. Li, Herman Y Li, Roger Y Li, Siu May Li, Chi Wai Low, Mary Ann Mallis, Paul L. Mallis, Howard Mangen, Mangen Group Inc, John D. Mascali, Carol K. McManus, Lynn R. McNeely, Metro Management Systems Inc, Midas Enterprises Corporation, Syed Musavi, Roy D. Newport, OC Burger Partners, LLC, P. A. & B. Investments, Inc., Paragon Management Services, Inc., Hiten Patel, Jayant F. Patel, Pravin F. Patel, Vimal Patel, Patel Brothers Inc, Vetit Piyas, Piyas Corporation, Jose F. Placencia, Progressive Management Services, Inc., Puja Restaurant Group Inc, Larry D. Ralston, Kyle Redding, Reddy Holly LP, Reeddy, Inc., Rituraj Investments, Inc., Donna Rubin, Joseph Rubin, SFO EQUITIES, LLC, SJ Quickbite Inc, Diemar E. Schott, Shenandoah Valley Enterprises Inc, Clifton Shigaki, Ella A. Smothers, James W. Stinnett, Judy G. Stinnett, Robert K. Swift, Wai−Mau Szeto, Tri−City Foods Inc, Union Foods Corp., Jose Villaflor, Susan A. Villaflor, Asit Vyas, Lorraine D. Whitehurst, Richard G. Whitehurst, Joseph K. Wong, David C. Wurts, Peggy E. Yeager, Thomas E. Yeager, John Yee, Shakeb H. Zuberi. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/17/2011: # 1 Summons Continued) (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/14/2011)
48 Transcript of Proceedings held on May 27, 2011, before Judge William H. Alsup. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Powell Sullivan, RPR, CRR, CSR, Telephone number 415−794−6659/Katherine_Sullivan@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Redaction Request due 7/7/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/18/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/14/2011. (Sullivan, Katherine) (Filed on 6/16/2011) (Entered: 06/16/2011)
49 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Burger King Corporation. Service waived by William Sein Chow waiver sent on 6/17/2011, answer due 8/16/2011. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 7/6/2011) (Entered: 07/06/2011)
50 Transcript of Proceedings held on May 5, 2011, before Judge William Alsup. Court Reporter Connie Kuhl, Telephone number 415−431−2020. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (ck, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2011) (Entered: 07/12/2011)

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 39 of 57

07/14/2011 07/18/2011 07/19/2011 07/20/2011 07/22/2011 07/22/2011 07/26/2011

51 STIPULATION For Protective Order by Burger King Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 7/14/2011) (Entered: 07/14/2011)
52 ORDER APPROVING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SUBJECT TO STATED CONDITIONS. Signed by Judge Alsup on July 18, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2011) (Entered: 07/18/2011)
53 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Burger King Corporation. Service waived by Jorge Finkelberg waiver sent on 6/17/2011, answer due 8/16/2011. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 7/19/2011) (Entered: 07/19/2011)
54 MOTION for Leave to File Third Party Defendants' Precis in Support of Request to File Motion to Sever Burger King Corporation's Third Party Complaint filed by Roy D. Newport. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Oliver−Thompson, Megan) (Filed on 7/20/2011) (Entered: 07/20/2011)
55 RESPONSE (re 54 MOTION for Leave to File Third Party Defendants' Precis in Support of Request to File Motion to Sever Burger King Corporation's Third Party Complaint ) filed byBurger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 7/22/2011) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
56 ORDER GRANTING THIRD−PARTY DEFENDANTS LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO SEVER BURGER KING CORPORATION'S THIRD−PARTY COMPLAINT by Hon. William Alsup granting 54 Motion for Leave to File.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2011) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
57 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 59 ***

07/26/2011 07/26/2011
07/27/2011 08/02/2011 08/03/2011 08/04/2011 08/04/2011 08/04/2011

MOTION to Sever Third Party Complaint filed by Roy D. Newport. Motion Hearing set for 9/1/2011 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 8/9/2011. Replies due by 8/16/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Oliver−Thompson, Megan) (Filed on 7/26/2011) Modified on 7/27/2011 (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/26/2011)
58 Request for Judicial Notice re 57 MOTION to Sever Third Party Complaint filed byRoy D. Newport. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Related document(s) 57 ) (Oliver−Thompson, Megan) (Filed on 7/26/2011) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
59 MOTION to Sever Third Party Complaint filed by Roy D. Newport. Motion Hearing set for 9/1/2011 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 8/9/2011. Replies due by 8/16/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Proposed Order)(Oliver−Thompson, Megan) (Filed on 7/26/2011) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
60 ANSWER to Third Party Complaint byJerry M. Comstock, SRAC Holdings I, Inc., Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II, LLC. (Orlick, Martin) (Filed on 7/27/2011) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
61 Letter from Julia Campins Seeking Production of Documents. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Campins, Julia) (Filed on 8/2/2011) (Entered: 08/02/2011)
62 ORDER REFERRING ALL DISCOVERY DISPUTES TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE DONNA M. RYU. Signed by Judge Alsup on August 3, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2011) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
63 ORDER REVOKING REFERRAL TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE DONNA RYU AND REFERRING ALL DISCOVERY DISPUTES TO ANOTHER RANDOMLY−ASSIGNED MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by Judge Alsup on August 4, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2011) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
64 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Third Party Complaint and Summons served on Willie C Cook on 07/13/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/4/2011) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley for Discovery. (tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2011) (Entered: 08/04/2011)

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 40 of 57

08/04/2011

65 MOTION to Sever filed by Jerry M. Comstock, SRAC Holdings I, Inc., Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II, LLC. Motion Hearing set for 9/8/2011 08:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 8/18/2011. Replies due by 8/25/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Proposed Order)(Orlick, Martin) (Filed on 8/4/2011) (Entered: 08/04/2011)

08/05/2011

66 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' AUGUST 2, 2011 LETTER 61 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 8/5/2011. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2011) (Entered: 08/05/2011)

08/05/2011 67 ANSWER to Third Party Complaint byWillie C. Cook. (Jackmon, Amira) (Filed on 8/5/2011) (Entered: 08/05/2011)

08/08/2011

68 REQUEST FOR RESPONSE(S) REGARDING THIRD−PARTY DEFENDANTS. Signed by Judge Alsup on August 8, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2011) (Entered: 08/08/2011)

08/09/2011 69 RESPONSE (re 59 MOTION to Sever Third Party Complaint ) filed byBurger King Corporation. (Friedenberg, Adam) (Filed on 8/9/2011) (Entered: 08/09/2011)

08/10/2011

70 NOTICE by Burger King Corporation re 68 Order (of Status of Service Pursuant to August 8 Order) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/10/2011) (Entered: 08/10/2011)

08/10/2011

71 STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order re Hearing on Motion to Sever (Docket No. 59) by Burger King Corporation. (Friedenberg, Adam) (Filed on 8/10/2011) (Entered: 08/10/2011)

08/11/2011

72 ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEVER BY THIRD−PARTY DEFENDANTS Motion Hearing set for 10/27/2011 08:00 AM before Hon. William Alsup. Signed by Judge Alsup on August 11, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2011) (Entered: 08/11/2011)

08/16/2011

73 REPLY (re 65 MOTION to Sever ) filed byJerry M. Comstock, SRAC Holdings I, Inc., Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II, LLC. (Orlick, Martin) (Filed on 8/16/2011) (Entered: 08/16/2011)

08/18/2011 74 Letter Brief in Response to Plaintiffs' August 2 letter filed byBurger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/18/2011) (Entered: 08/18/2011)

08/19/2011

75 CLERKS NOTICE: Discovery Hearing set for 9/15/2011 02:00 PM in Courtroom E, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2011) (Entered: 08/19/2011)

08/23/2011 76 Letter from Amy F. Robertson in Reply to Defendant's August 18 letter. (Robertson, Amy) (Filed on 8/23/2011) (Entered: 08/23/2011)

08/26/2011

77 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, 08/11/11 Order Regarding Motion to Sever and BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third Party Complaint served on Cal Burg, Inc. on 08/15/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/26/2011) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

08/26/2011

78 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, 08/11/11 Order Regarding Motion to Sever and BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third Party Complaint served on Dara Dejbakhsh on 08/16/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/26/2011) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

08/26/2011

79 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, 08/11/11 Order Regarding Motion to Sever and BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third Party Complaint served on Allan B. Gantes on 08/15/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/26/2011) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

08/26/2011

80 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, 08/11/11 Order Regarding Motion to Sever and BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third Party Complaint served on Angela Chen on 08/15/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/26/2011) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 41 of 57

08/26/2011

81 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, 08/11/11 Order Regarding Motion to Sever and BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third Party Complaint served on Granya, Inc. on 08/15/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/26/2011) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

08/26/2011

82 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, 08/11/11 Order Regarding Motion to Sever and BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third Party Complaint served on Mary Ann Mallis on 08/15/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/26/2011) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

08/26/2011

83 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, 08/11/11 Order Regarding Motion to Sever and BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third Party Complaint served on Paul L. Mallis on 08/15/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/26/2011) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

08/26/2011

84 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, 08/11/11 Order Regarding Motion to Sever and BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third Party Complaint served on William Sein Chow on 08/17/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/26/2011) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

08/26/2011

85 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, 08/11/11 Order Regarding Motion to Sever and BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third Party Complaint served on Jorge Finkelberg on 08/15/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/26/2011) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

08/26/2011

86 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, 08/11/11 Order Regarding Motion to Sever and BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third Party Complaint served on Clifton Shigaki on 08/15/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/26/2011) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

08/26/2011

87 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, 08/11/11 Order Regarding Motion to Sever and BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third Party Complaint served on Burger InvestCo, LLC on 08/15/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/26/2011) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

08/26/2011

88 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, 08/11/11 Order Regarding Motion to Sever and BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third Party Complaint served on OC Burger Partners, LLC on 08/15/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/26/2011) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

08/26/2011

89 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, 08/11/11 Order Regarding Motion to Sever and BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third Party Complaint served on Catherine A. Kubu on 08/15/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/26/2011) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

08/26/2011

90 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, 08/11/11 Order Regarding Motion to Sever and BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third Party Complaint served on John D. Mascali on 08/15/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/26/2011) (Entered: 08/26/2011)

08/31/2011

91 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third−Party Complaint and August 11, 2011 Order Regarding Motinos ot Sever by Third Party Defendants served on OC Burger Partners LLC on 08/15/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/31/2011) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

08/31/2011

92 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third−Party Complaint and August 11, 2011 Order Regarding Motinos ot Sever by Third Party Defendants served on Benjamin Kuo−An Chang on 08/21/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/31/2011) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

08/31/2011

93 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third−Party Complaint and August 11, 2011 Order Regarding Motinos ot Sever by Third Party Defendants served on Desert Restaurant Ventures, LLC on 08/17/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/31/2011) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 42 of 57

08/31/2011

94 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third−Party Complaint and August 11, 2011 Order Regarding Motinos ot Sever by Third Party Defendants served on Danabo Arcadia Restaurant Ventures LLC on 08/17/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/31/2011) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

08/31/2011

95 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third−Party Complaint and August 11, 2011 Order Regarding Motinos ot Sever by Third Party Defendants served on Arcadia Restaurant Ventures LLC on 08/17/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/31/2011) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

08/31/2011

96 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third−Party Complaint and August 11, 2011 Order Regarding Motinos ot Sever by Third Party Defendants served on Beatrice E. Kubu on 08/16/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/31/2011) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

08/31/2011

97 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third−Party Complaint and August 11, 2011 Order Regarding Motinos ot Sever by Third Party Defendants served on Francisco Foods, Inc. on 08/15/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/31/2011) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

08/31/2011

98 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third−Party Complaint and August 11, 2011 Order Regarding Motions to Sever by Third Party Defendants served on Carol K. McManus on 08/19/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/31/2011) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

08/31/2011

99 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third−Party Complaint and August 11, 2011 Order Regarding Motions to Sever by Third Party Defendants served on Susan Kubu−Jones on 08/15/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/31/2011) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

08/31/2011

100 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third−Party Complaint and August 11, 2011 Order Regarding Motions to Sever by Third Party Defendants served on Geoffrey A. Jones on 08/15/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/31/2011) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

08/31/2011

101 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third−Party Complaint and August 11, 2011 Order Regarding Motions to Sever by Third−Party Defendants served on Geboy, Inc. on 08/30/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/31/2011) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

08/31/2011

102 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third−Party Complaint and August 11, 2011 Order Regarding Motions to Sever by Third Party Defendants served on Luis Boyance on 08/30/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/31/2011) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

08/31/2011

103 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third−Party Complaint and August 11, 2011 Order Regarding Motions to Sever by Third Party Defendants served on Geboy de Tijuana SA de CV on 08/30/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/31/2011) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

08/31/2011

104 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third−Party Complaint and August 11, 2011 Order Regarding Motions to Sever by Third Party Defendants served on John Yee on 08/19/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/31/2011) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

08/31/2011

105 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third−Party Complaint and August 11, 2011 Order Regarding Motions to Sever by Third Party Defendants served on Stanley Kubu on 08/19/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/31/2011) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

08/31/2011

106 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third−Party Complaint and August 11, 2011 Order Regarding Motions to Sever by Third Party Defendants served on Asit Vyas on 8/30/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/31/2011) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 43 of 57

08/31/2011

107 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third−Party Complaint and August 11, 2011 Order Regarding Motions to Sever by Third Party Defendants Non−Service served on George J. Gantes on 8/31/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/31/2011) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

08/31/2011

108 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons, BKC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third−Party Complaint and August 11, 2011 Order Regarding Motions to Sever by Third Party Defendants Non−Service served on John D. Gantes on 8/31/2011, filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 8/31/2011) (Entered: 08/31/2011)

09/06/2011 109 Third−Party Defendants ANSWER to Third Party Complaint byFrancisco Foods, Inc., Geoffrey A. Jones, Beatrice E. Kubu, Catherine A. Kubu, Susan Kubu−Jones, Carol K. McManus. (Garabedian, Armen) (Filed on 9/6/2011) (Entered: 09/06/2011)

09/06/2011 110 SUGGESTION OF DEATH Upon the Record as to Stanley Kubu by Francisco Foods, Inc., Geoffrey A. Jones, Beatrice E. Kubu, Catherine A. Kubu, Susan Kubu−Jones, Carol K. McManus. (Garabedian, Armen) (Filed on 9/6/2011) (Entered: 09/06/2011)

09/06/2011 111 Third−Party Defendant Clifton Shigaki's ANSWER to Third Party Complaint byClifton Shigaki. (Calderon, David) (Filed on 9/6/2011) (Entered: 09/06/2011)

09/06/2011

112 Joinder re 59 MOTION to Sever Third Party Complaint JOINDER IN THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SEVER BURGER KING CORPORATION'S THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT by Angela Chen, John Yee. (Oliver−Thompson, Megan) (Filed on 9/6/2011) (Entered: 09/06/2011)

09/16/2011 113 Minute Entry: Discovery Hearing held on 9/15/2011 before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley (Date Filed: 9/16/2011). (Court Reporter: Lydia Zinn) (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/16/2011) (Entered: 09/16/2011)

09/20/2011

114 Joinder re 59 MOTION to Sever Third Party Complaint, 65 MOTION to Sever by Francisco Foods, Inc., Geoffrey A. Jones, Beatrice E. Kubu, Catherine A. Kubu, Susan Kubu−Jones, Carol K. McManus, Clifton Shigaki. (Calderon, David) (Filed on 9/20/2011) (Entered: 09/20/2011)

09/21/2011 115 ANSWER to Third Party Complaint by Jorge Finkelberg. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2011) (Entered: 09/21/2011)

09/22/2011

116 ANSWER TO THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT re 45 Third Party Complaint, by Danabo Arcadia Restaurant Ventures LLC, Dara Dejbakhsh, Desert Restaurant Ventures, LLC, Arcadia Restaurant Ventures, LLC. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2011) (Entered: 09/22/2011)

09/23/2011

117 Transcript of Proceedings held on 09/15/2011, before Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lydia Zinn, Telephone number (415) 531−6587. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/22/2011. (Zinn, Lydia) (Filed on 9/23/2011) (Entered: 09/23/2011)

09/27/2011 118 NOTICE by Burger King Corporation Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Privileged Surveys (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 9/27/2011) (Entered: 09/27/2011)

10/03/2011

119 NOTICE by Elizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos re 76 Letter, 61 Letter Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Production of Surveys (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Julia Campins, # 2 Exhibit 1)(Campins, Julia) (Filed on 10/3/2011) (Entered: 10/03/2011)

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 44 of 57

10/04/2011 10/05/2011 10/06/2011 10/11/2011 10/12/2011
10/13/2011 10/13/2011 10/13/2011

120 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice − Martin J. Keane ( Filing fee $ 275, receipt number 34611065334) filed by Burger King Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2011) (Entered: 10/04/2011)
121 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION PRO HAC VICE OF MARTIN J. KEANE by Hon. William Alsup granting 120 Motion for Pro Hac Vice.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2011) (Entered: 10/05/2011)
122 RESPONSE (re 65 MOTION to Sever ) and Consolidate filed by Third Party Defendants Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II, LLC, SRAC Holdings I, Inc., and Jerry M. Comstock filed byBurger King Corporation. (Cownan, Peter) (Filed on 10/6/2011) (Entered: 10/06/2011)
123 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Surveys filed by Burger King Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit BKC's [Proposed] Surreply, # 2 Exhibit A to [Proposed] Surreply, # 3 Exhibit B to [Proposed] Surreply)(Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 10/11/2011) (Entered: 10/11/2011)
124 RESPONSE (re 123 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Surveys ) filed byElizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Campins, Julia) (Filed on 10/12/2011) (Entered: 10/12/2011)
125 REPLY (re 123 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Surveys ) filed byBurger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 10/13/2011) (Entered: 10/13/2011)
126 REPLY (re 65 MOTION to Sever ) filed byJerry M. Comstock, SRAC Holdings I, Inc., Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II, LLC. (Orlick, Martin) (Filed on 10/13/2011) (Entered: 10/13/2011)
127 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 128 ***

10/13/2011 10/14/2011 10/19/2011 10/19/2011 10/19/2011
10/19/2011

REPLY (re 59 MOTION to Sever Third Party Complaint ) filed by Roy D. Newport. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A)(Oliver−Thompson, Megan) (Filed on 10/13/2011) Modified on 10/14/2011 (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/13/2011)
128 REPLY (re 59 MOTION to Sever Third Party Complaint ) CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 127 filed byRoy D. Newport. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A)(Oliver−Thompson, Megan) (Filed on 10/13/2011) (Entered: 10/13/2011)
129 ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES (Dkt. No. 61). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 10/13/2011. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2011) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
130 CLERKS NOTICE Rescheduling Hearing Time. Motion hearing set for 10/27/2011 2:00 PM. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2011) (Entered: 10/19/2011)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 65 MOTION to Sever, 59 MOTION to Sever Third Party Complaint. Motion Hearing set for 10/27/2011 02:00 PM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2011) (Entered: 10/19/2011)
131 MOTION to Stay re 129 Order or, Alternatively, MOTION Enlarge Its Time to Comply with the Court's October 14 Order filed by Burger King Corporation. Responses due by 11/2/2011. Replies due by 11/9/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration in Support of BKC's Motion to Stay or Alternatively, Enlarge Its Time to Comply with the Court's Oct. 14 Order, # 2 Proposed Order)(Perlman, Jonathan) (Filed on 10/19/2011) (Entered: 10/19/2011)
132 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEVER THIRD−PARTY COMPLAINT AND VACATING HEARING by Judge William Alsup [denying 59 Motion to Sever]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2011) (Entered: 10/19/2011)

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 45 of 57

10/19/2011

Motion to Sever hearing vacated. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 10/19/2011. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/19/2011) (Entered: 10/19/2011)

10/21/2011

133 RESPONSE (re 131 MOTION to Stay re 129 Order or, Alternatively MOTION to Stay re 129 Order or, Alternatively MOTION Enlarge Its Time to Comply with the Court's October 14 Order ) filed byElizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy F. Robertson, # 2 Proposed Order)(Robertson, Amy) (Filed on 10/21/2011) (Entered: 10/21/2011)

10/21/2011

134 ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY OR, ALTERNATIVELY, ENLARGE ITS TIME TO COMPLY WITH THE COURTS OCTOBER 14, 2011 ORDER (Dkt. No. 131). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 10/21/2011. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2011) (Entered: 10/21/2011)

10/24/2011

135 Emergency MOTION to Stay re 134 Order, 129 Order, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Comply with 129 filed by Burger King Corporation. Responses due by 11/7/2011. Replies due by 11/14/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Van Horn, # 2 Proposed Order)(Perlman, Jonathan) (Filed on 10/24/2011) (Entered: 10/24/2011)

10/25/2011

136 RESPONSE (re 135 Emergency MOTION to Stay re 134 Order, 129 Order, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Comply with 129 ) filed by Elizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy F. Robertson, # 2 Proposed Order)(Robertson, Amy) (Filed on 10/25/2011) Modified on 10/26/2011 (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/25/2011)

10/26/2011

137 ORDER DENYING STAY AND GRANTING ENLARGEMENT OF TIME by Hon. William Alsup denying 135 Motion to Stay; granting in part and denying in part 135 Motion for Extension of Time to File.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2011) (Entered: 10/26/2011)

10/28/2011 138 MOTION to Stay re 129 Order (Renewed) filed by Burger King Corporation. Responses due by 11/14/2011. Replies due by 11/21/2011. (Perlman, Jonathan) (Filed on 10/28/2011) (Entered: 10/28/2011)

10/28/2011 139 OBJECTIONS to re 129 Order by Burger King Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Perlman, Jonathan) (Filed on 10/28/2011) (Entered: 10/29/2011)

10/31/2011

140 RESPONSE (re 138 MOTION to Stay re 129 Order (Renewed) ) filed byElizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Timothy P. Fox)(Fox, Timothy) (Filed on 10/31/2011) (Entered: 10/31/2011)

10/31/2011 141 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Third−Party Defendant Benjamin Kuo−An Chang by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 10/31/2011) (Entered: 10/31/2011)

11/01/2011 142 REPLY (re 138 MOTION to Stay re 129 Order (Renewed) ) filed byBurger King Corporation. (Perlman, Jonathan) (Filed on 11/1/2011) (Entered: 11/01/2011)

11/02/2011 143 THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS' ANSWER to Third Party Complaint byRoy D. Newport. (Oliver−Thompson, Megan) (Filed on 11/2/2011) (Entered: 11/02/2011)

11/04/2011 144 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion to Certify Class filed by Elizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 46 of 57

11/04/2011 11/07/2011 11/08/2011 11/10/2011
11/10/2011
11/14/2011 11/14/2011 11/14/2011
11/15/2011 11/21/2011

Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy F. Robertson, # 2 Proposed Order)(Robertson, Amy) (Filed on 11/4/2011) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
145 Appendix re 143 Answer to Third Party Complaint filed byRoy D. Newport. (Related document(s) 143 ) (Oliver−Thompson, Megan) (Filed on 11/4/2011) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
146 ORDER REQUESTING RESPONSE BRIEF FROM PLAINTIFFS ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM A NON−DISPOSITIVE ORDER OF A MAGISTRATE JUDGE re 139 Objection filed by Burger King Corporation (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/9/2011: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/07/2011)
147 RESPONSE (re 144 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion to Certify Class ) to Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time to FIle Motion to Certify Class filed byBurger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 11/8/2011) (Entered: 11/08/2011)
148 RESPONSE to re 139 Objection Plaintiffs' Opposition to BKC's Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Order of Magistrate Judge by Elizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy F. Robertson)(Robertson, Amy) (Filed on 11/10/2011) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
149 Amended MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion to Certify Class filed by Elizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy F. Robertson, # 2 Proposed Order)(Robertson, Amy) (Filed on 11/10/2011) (Entered: 11/10/2011)
150 ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO STAY by Hon. William Alsup granting in part and denying in part 138 Motion to Stay.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2011) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
151 RESPONSE (re 149 Amended MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion to Certify Class ) to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Extension for Class Certification filed byBurger King Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 11/14/2011) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
152 REPLY (re 149 Amended MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion to Certify Class ) filed byElizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Amy F. Robertson, # 2 Proposed Order)(Robertson, Amy) (Filed on 11/14/2011) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
153 ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION by Hon. William Alsup granting in part and denying in part 149 Motion for Extension of Time to File.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2011) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
154 STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7−3.d Plaintiffs' Statement of Recent Decision in Opposition to BKC's 139 Motion for Relief from

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 47 of 57

11/23/2011 11/29/2011
11/29/2011 12/01/2011 12/02/2011 12/02/2011 12/02/2011
12/06/2011 12/06/2011
12/06/2011

Nondispositive Order of Magistrate Judge filed by Elizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Related document(s) 148 ) (Robertson, Amy) (Filed on 11/21/2011) Modified on 11/22/2011 (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/21/2011)
155 ORDER SETTING HEARING ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON−DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE re 139 Objection filed by Burger King Corporation. Signed by Judge Alsup on November 23, 2011. (whalc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/9/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/23/2011)
156 NOTICE by Elizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos Plaintiffs' Notice of Cases to Which They May Refer During the December 1, 2011 Hearing (Robertson, Amy) (Filed on 11/29/2011) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
157 NOTICE by Burger King Corporation of Cases to Which It May Refer During Dec. 1, 2011 Hearing (Perlman, Jonathan) (Filed on 11/29/2011) (Entered: 11/29/2011)
159 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 12/1/2011 before William Alsup (Date Filed: 12/1/2011). (Court Reporter Sahar Bartlett.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/1/2011) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
158 ORDER REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 2, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/9/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/02/2011)
160 ORDER OF REFERRAL TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR MEDIATION/SETTLEMENT to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero for Settlement. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 2, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/9/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/02/2011)
161 NOTICE by Elizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos Plaintiffs' Precis in Support of Motion for Class Certification (Robertson, Amy) (Filed on 12/2/2011) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero for Settlement (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2011) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
162 Brief Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief Re: Motion to Compel Survey Data and Photographs filed byElizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Timothy P. Fox)(Robertson, Amy) (Filed on 12/6/2011) (Entered: 12/06/2011)
163 Brief (Supplemental Brief in Support of BKC's Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Order of Magistrate Judge) filed byBurger King Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B", # 3 Exhibit "C", # 4 Exhibit "D")(Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 12/6/2011) (Entered: 12/06/2011)

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 48 of 57

12/06/2011

164 NOTICE by Burger King Corporation re 163 Brief, (Declaration of Jonathan E. Perlman in Support of BKC's Supplemental Brief in Support of Its Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Order of Magistrate Judge) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B", # 3 Exhibit "C", # 4 Exhibit "D", # 5 Exhibit "E", # 6 Exhibit "F", # 7 Exhibit "G")(Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 12/6/2011) (Entered: 12/06/2011)

12/06/2011

165 STIPULATION and Proposed Order for Extension of Page Limits for Briefing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by Elizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Campins, Julia) (Filed on 12/6/2011) (Entered: 12/06/2011)

12/07/2011

166 ORDER RE BKC MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DISCOVERY ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE [re 139 Objection filed by Burger King Corporation]. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 12/7/2011. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/9/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/07/2011)

12/08/2011

167 ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION re 161 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by Daniel Xenos, Diane Dailey, Elizabeth Baker, Priscilla Walker, Tyrey Mills, William Farber, Jenilyn Jimenez, Ron Sarfaty, Carol Picchi, Marsha Shining Woman, Kitty Dean, Bethany McClam, Carol Lacher, Kenneth Kilgore, Daniel Hernandez, George Partida, Richard Felix, William Showen, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Alfred Brown, Erik Nieland, Kathleen Gonzalez, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 8, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/9/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/08/2011)

12/08/2011

168 ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMITS FOR BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION re 165 Stipulation,, filed by Daniel Xenos, Diane Dailey, Elizabeth Baker, Priscilla Walker, Tyrey Mills, William Farber, Jenilyn Jimenez, Ron Sarfaty, Carol Picchi, Goldene Springer, Marsha Shining Woman, Kitty Dean, Bethany McClam, Carol Lacher, Kenneth Kilgore, Richard Felix, William Showen, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Erik Nieland, Uverda Harry, Alfred Brown, Kathleen Gonzalez, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Kathryn Tyler. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 8, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/9/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/08/2011)

12/08/2011

169 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Elizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. Motion Hearing set for 1/19/2012 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 12/22/2011. Replies due by 1/5/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Eric McSwain, # 3 Declaration of Amy F. Robertson, # 4 Declaration of Bill Lann Lee, # 5 Declaration of Mari Mayeda, # 6 Declaration of Caitlin Anderson)(Robertson, Amy) (Filed on 12/8/2011) (Entered: 12/08/2011)

12/09/2011

170 Notice of Settlement Conference and Order Setting Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero Settlement Conference set for 1/4/2012 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 12/9/11. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2011) (Entered: 12/09/2011)

12/14/2011

171 MOTION to Amend/Correct 169 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Elizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Anne Casey, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. Responses due by 12/19/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Julia Campins in Support of Administrative Motion for Leave to

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 49 of 57

12/15/2011 12/15/2011
12/19/2011 12/20/2011 12/21/2011 12/21/2011 12/21/2011
12/22/2011
12/22/2011 01/04/2012

File Corrected Pleadings, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Corrected Motion for Class Certification, # 4 Revised Appendix 2, # 5 Corrected Declaration of Amy F. Robertson in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification)(Campins, Julia) (Filed on 12/14/2011) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
172 Letter from Julia Campins re: Attendance of Named Plaintiffs at Settlement Conference. (Campins, Julia) (Filed on 12/15/2011) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
173 ORDER GRANTING 172 Letter filed by Daniel Xenos, Diane Dailey, Elizabeth Baker, Priscilla Walker, Tyrey Mills, William Farber, Jenilyn Jimenez, Ron Sarfaty, Carol Picchi, Goldene Springer, Marsha Shining Woman, Kitty Dean, Bethany McClam, Carol Lacher, Kenneth Kilgore, Daniel Hernandez, George Partida, Richard Felix, William Showen, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Alfred Brown, Erik Nieland, Judy Cutler, Kathryn Tyler. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 12/15/11. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2011) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
174 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE CORRECTED PLEADINGS by Hon. William Alsup granting 171 Motion to Amend/Correct ;.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/19/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/19/2011)
175 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice all claims against Third−Party Defendants Luis Boyance, Geboy, Inc., Geboy de Tijuana, SA de CV and Jorge Finkelberg. by Burger King Corporation (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 12/20/2011) (Entered: 12/20/2011)
176 MOTION to Withdraw Named Plaintiffs Casey and Hernandez filed by Anne Casey, Daniel Hernandez. Responses due by 12/28/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Stipulation, # 2 Proposed Order)(Campins, Julia) (Filed on 12/21/2011) (Entered: 12/21/2011)
177 ORDER ALLOWING NAMED PLAINTIFFS CASEY AND HERNANDEZ TO WITHDRAW by Hon. William Alsup granting 176 Motion to Withdraw.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2011) (Entered: 12/21/2011)
178 STIPULATION re 170 Order Setting Settlement Conference, 169 MOTION to Certify Class (and proposed Order) by Elizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Burger King Corporation, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 12/21/2011) (Entered: 12/21/2011)
179 ORDER ALTERING DEADLINES FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFING AND HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION re 178 Stipulation,, filed by Daniel Xenos, Diane Dailey, Elizabeth Baker, Priscilla Walker, Tyrey Mills, William Farber, Jenilyn Jimenez, Ron Sarfaty, Carol Picchi, Goldene Springer, Marsha Shining Woman, Kitty Dean, Bethany McClam, Carol Lacher, Kenneth Kilgore, Daniel Hernandez, George Partida, Richard Felix, William Showen, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Erik Nieland, Uverda Harry, Alfred Brown, Kathleen Gonzalez, Judy Cutler, Kathryn Tyler, Burger King Corporation, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 178 Stipulation,, 169 MOTION to Certify Class. Responses due by 1/12/2012. Replies due by 2/2/2012. Motion Hearing set for 2/16/2012 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup.. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 22, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2011) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
180 CLERKS NOTICE RE: COURTROOM CHANGE FOR JAN 4, 2012 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. Settlement Conference to be held in Courtroom D . (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2011) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
181 ORDER GRANTING BURGER KING CORPORATION PERMISSION TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHERWISE STAYING NEWPORT ACTION. Signed by Judge Alsup on January 4, 2012. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2012) (Entered: 01/04/2012)

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 50 of 57

01/05/2012

182 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held on 1/4/12 before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Further settlement conference set for 1/10/12, in Courtroom D, at 9:00 AM. (Court Reporter Not Reported.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/5/2012) (Entered: 01/05/2012)

01/05/2012

183 NOTICE and Order Setting Further Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Settlement Conference set for 1/10/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom D , 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 1/5/12. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2012) (Entered: 01/05/2012)

01/11/2012

184 STIPULATION re 169 MOTION to Certify Class, 179 Order,,,, Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings,,, 174 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, to extend deadline for response to class certification motion by Burger King Corporation. (Perlman, Jonathan) (Filed on 1/11/2012) (Entered: 01/11/2012)

01/12/2012

185 ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR BKC'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION re 184 Stipulation, filed by Burger King Corporation, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 184 Stipulation, 169 MOTION to Certify Class. Responses due by 1/17/2012.. Signed by Judge Alsup on January 12, 2012. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2012) (Entered: 01/12/2012)

01/12/2012 186 Minute Entry: Further Settlement Conference held on 1/10/12 before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Case did not settle. (Court Reporter Not Reported.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/12/2012) (Entered: 01/12/2012)

01/13/2012

187 Minute Entry: Further TelephonicSettlement Conference held on 1/13/12 before Mag. Judge Spero. Further telephonic settlement conference set for 1/18/12 at 9:30 AM. (Court Reporter Not Reported.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/13/2012) (Entered: 01/13/2012)

01/13/2012

Set/Reset Hearings: Further Settlement Conference set for 1/18/2012 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2012) (Entered: 01/13/2012)

01/17/2012

188 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO STAY CASE AND CANCEL FEBRUARY 16, 2012 HEARING DATE PENDING SUBMISSION OF MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT filed by Elizabeth Baker, Masroor A. Batla, Tallat Batla, Batla Restaurant Group, Inc., Bayshore Foods Inc, Beach City Inc, Chris G. Bredesen, Bonita B. Brening, Gregory R. Brening, Brening Enterprises Inc, Brening Enterprises LP, Brening Enterprises No. 3 Inc, Brening Enterprises No. 4, Inc., Richard A. Brening, Jr., Leslie Broadland, Alfred Brown, Burger King Corporation, Dean Frank Busch, Sr, Nancy Mae Busch, C&L 28 Inc, C&R Foods Inc, C&S Foods Inc, Card Investment, Incorporated, Centennial Restaurants LLC, Chung Ching Chang, Huei L. Chang, Angela Chen, Chris Chen, Andrew J. Cherng, Hansa V. Chhaddva, Robert T. Chiu, Daniel Y. Chu, Patsy P. Chu, Chu Investment Inc, Marshall J. Chuang, Jae Chung, Cimm's Incorporated, Lawrence P. Cimmarusti, Ralph J. Cimmarusti, Charles D. Cobb, Jerry M. Comstock, Byron Crossen, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, David J. Davis, Kitty Dean, Deep Valley Enterprises Incorporated, Balbir S. Dhillon, Dhillon ABS Investment Inc, Roland Eddy, Vincent F. Eupierre, Eureka Fortune Inc, Evergreen Restaurant Group California Inc, William Farber, Richard Felix, Wilawan Foo, 952 Enterprises LLC, Donna B. Agins, Richard H. Agins, Nasser Aliabadi, Jagdish R. Amin, Antelope Valley Restaurants, Inc., Carolyn P. Arnold, B−Y−J Partners, SCOTT A BRENING, Gate 74 Inc, Gary H. Geiger, Amarjeet Ghai, Charanjit Ghai, Harshraj Ghai, Albert Gonzalez, Kathleen Gonzalez, HG Foods LLC, HKR Restaurants, Inc. n/k/a WD Restaurant #1937, David Lynwood Hairston, Elham Hakimianpour, Herbert Hakimianpour, Robert Hakimianpour, Violet Hakimianpour, Hakimianpour Santa Monica Group, L.L.C., Gussie Hampton, Uverda Harry, Lynn A. Hartje, Terry O. Hartshorn, Dominic Ho, J and A Food Service Inc, JimRich Restaurant Investment Corporation, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kern Desert Foods, Inc., Abdul R. Khan, Kenneth Kilgore, David Knox, Todd Knox, Joseph C. Kruger, Vicky Kruger, Carol Lacher, Herbert Y. Li, Herman Y Li, Roger Y Li, Siu May Li, Chi Wai Low, Howard Mangen, Mangen Group Inc, Bethany McClam, Lynn R. McNeely, Metro Management Systems Inc, Midas Enterprises Corporation, Tyrey Mills, Syed Musavi, Roy D. Newport, Newport Plaintiffs, Erik Nieland, P. A. & B. Investments, Inc., Paragon Management Services, Inc., George Partida, Hiten Patel, Jayant F. Patel, Pravin F. Patel, Vimal Patel, Patel Brothers Inc, Carol Picchi, Vetit Piyas, Piyas Corporation, Jose F. Placencia, Puja Restaurant Group Inc, Larry D. Ralston, Kyle

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 51 of 57

01/17/2012 01/17/2012 01/18/2012

Redding, Reddy Holly LP, Reeddy, Inc., Rituraj Investments, Inc., Donna Rubin, Joseph Rubin, SFO EQUITIES, LLC, SJ Quickbite Inc, SRAC Holdings I, Inc., Ron Sarfaty, Diemar E. Schott, Shenandoah Valley Enterprises Inc, William Showen, Ella A. Smothers, Goldene Springer, James W. Stinnett, Judy G. Stinnett, Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II, LLC, Robert K. Swift, Wai−Mau Szeto, Tri−City Foods Inc, Kathryn Tyler, Union Foods Corp., Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Jose Villaflor, Susan A. Villaflor, Priscilla Walker, Lorraine D. Whitehurst, Richard G. Whitehurst, Marsha Shining Woman, Joseph K. Wong, David C. Wurts, Daniel Xenos, Peggy E. Yeager, Thomas E. Yeager, John Yee, Shakeb H. Zuberi. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 1/17/2012) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
189 ORDER REGARDING STAY OF ACTION by Hon. William Alsup granting in part and denying in part 188 Stipulation.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/17/2012) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
190 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 169 MOTION to Certify Class, 189 Order on Stipulation filed by Burger King Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 1/17/2012) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
191 *** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 194 ***

01/18/2012 01/18/2012 01/18/2012 01/18/2012
01/18/2012

RESPONSE (re 169 MOTION to Certify Class ) filed by Burger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 1/18/2012) Modified on 1/19/2012 (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2012)
192 ORDER GRANTING BKC'S AGREED MOTION FOR ONE DAY ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Hon. William Alsup granting 190 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 169 MOTION to Certify Class.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2012) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
193 RESPONSE (re 169 MOTION to Certify Class ) Opposition filed byJerry M. Comstock, SRAC Holdings I, Inc., Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Orlick, Martin) (Filed on 1/18/2012) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
194 RESPONSE (re 169 MOTION to Certify Class ) (CORRECTED OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION) filed byBurger King Corporation. (Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 1/18/2012). CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 191 . Modified on 1/19/2012 (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/18/2012)
195 NOTICE by Burger King Corporation re 194 Opposition/Response to Motion (Corrected Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit "B", # 3 Exhibit "C" Leblond Declaration, # 4 Exhibit "D" Gibbens Declaration, # 5 Exhibit "A" to Gibbens Declaration, # 6 Exhibit "B" to Gibbens Declaration, # 7 Exhibit "E" Cohen Declaration, # 8 Exhibit "A" to Cohen Declaration, # 9 Exhibit "B" to Cohen Declaration, # 10 Exhibit "C" to Cohen Declaration, # 11 Exhibit "D" to Cohen Declaration, # 12 Exhibit "E" to Cohen Declaration, # 13 Exhibit "F" to Cohen Declaration, # 14 Exhibit "G" to Cohen Declaration, # 15 Exhibit "H" to Cohen Declaration, # 16 Exhibit "I" to Cohen Declaration, # 17 Exhibit "J" to Cohen Declaration, # 18 Exhibit "K" to Cohen Declaration, # 19 Exhibit "L" to Cohen Declaration, # 20 Exhibit "M" to Cohen Declaration, # 21 Exhibit "N" to Cohen Declaration, # 22 Exhibit "O" to Cohen Declaration, # 23 Exhibit "P" to Cohen Declaration, # 24 Exhibit "Q" to Cohen Declaration, # 25 Exhibit "R" to Cohen Declaration, # 26 Exhibit "S" to Cohen Declaration, # 27 Exhibit "T" to Cohen Declaration, # 28 Exhibit "U" to Cohen Declaration, # 29 Exhibit "F" Van Horn Declaration, # 30 Exhibit "A" to Van Horn Declaration, # 31 Exhibit "B" to Van Horn Declaration, # 32 Exhibit "G" Part 1, # 33 Exhibit "G" Part 2, # 34 Exhibit "H" Part 1, # 35 Exhibit "H" Part 1a, # 36 Exhibit "H" Part 2, # 37 Exhibit "I", # 38 Exhibit "J", # 39 Exhibit "K", # 40 Exhibit "L", # 41 Exhibit "M", # 42 Exhibit "N")(Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 1/18/2012) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
196 Minute Entry: Further Telephonic Settlement Conference held on 1/18/12 before Magistrate Judge Spero. Further Telephonic Settlement Conference set for 1/18/12 at 9:00 AM. (Recording #Not Reported.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed:

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 52 of 57

01/18/2012 01/20/2012 01/20/2012 02/07/2012

1/18/2012) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
Set/Reset Hearings: Further Telephonic Settlement Conference set for 1/20/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2012) (Entered: 01/18/2012)
197 Minute Entry: Further Telephonic Settlement Conference held on 1/20/2012 before Judge Spero. Further, in person, Settlement Conference set for 2/23/2012 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter Not Reported.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/20/2012) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
198 Notice and Order Setting Further Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Further Settlement Conference (in person) set for 2/23/2012 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 1/20/12. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2012) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
199 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 181 Order filed by Elizabeth Baker, Masroor A. Batla, Tallat Batla, Batla Restaurant Group, Inc., Bayshore Foods Inc, Beach City Inc, Luis Boyance, Chris G. Bredesen, Bonita B. Brening, Gregory R. Brening, Brening Enterprises Inc, Brening Enterprises LP, Brening Enterprises No. 3 Inc, Brening Enterprises No. 4, Inc., Richard A. Brening, Jr., Leslie Broadland, Alfred Brown, Burger InvestCo, LLC, Burger King Corporation, Dean Frank Busch, Sr, Nancy Mae Busch, C&L 28 Inc, C&R Foods Inc, C&S Foods Inc, Cal Burg, Inc., Card Investment, Incorporated, Anne Casey, Centennial Restaurants LLC, Benjamin Kuo−An Chang, Chung Ching Chang, Huei L. Chang, Angela Chen, Chris Chen, Andrew J. Cherng, Hansa V. Chhaddva, Robert T. Chiu, William Sein Chow, Daniel Y. Chu, Patsy P. Chu, Chu Investment Inc, Marshall J. Chuang, Jae Chung, Cimm's Incorporated, Lawrence P. Cimmarusti, Ralph J. Cimmarusti, Charles D. Cobb, Jerry M. Comstock, Willie C. Cook, Byron Crossen, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Danabo Arcadia Restaurant Ventures LLC, David J. Davis, Kitty Dean, Deep Valley Enterprises Incorporated, Dara Dejbakhsh, Desert Restaurant Ventures, LLC, Balbir S. Dhillon, Dhillon ABS Investment Inc, Roland Eddy, Vincent F. Eupierre, Eureka Fortune Inc, Evergreen Restaurant Group, Evergreen Restaurant Group California Inc, William Farber, Richard Felix, Jorge Finkelberg, Wilawan Foo, Francisco Foods, Inc., 952 Enterprises LLC, Donna B. Agins, Richard H. Agins, Nasser Aliabadi, Jagdish R. Amin, Antelope Valley Restaurants, Inc., Arcadia Restaurant Ventures, LLC, Carolyn P. Arnold, B−Y−J Partners, SCOTT A BRENING, Allan B. Gantes, George J. Gantes, John D. Gantes, Gate 74 Inc, Geboy de Tijuana SA de CV, Geboy, Inc., Gary H. Geiger, Amarjeet Ghai, Charanjit Ghai, Harshraj Ghai, Albert Gonzalez, Kathleen Gonzalez, Granya, Inc., HG Foods LLC, HKR Restaurants, Inc. n/k/a WD Restaurant #1937, David Lynwood Hairston, Elham Hakimianpour, Herbert Hakimianpour, Robert Hakimianpour, Violet Hakimianpour, Hakimianpour Santa Monica Group, L.L.C., Gussie Hampton, Uverda Harry, Lynn A. Hartje, Terry O. Hartshorn, Daniel Hernandez, Dominic Ho, J and A Food Service Inc, JimRich Restaurant Investment Corporation, Jenilyn Jimenez, Geoffrey A. Jones, Kern Desert Foods, Inc., Abdul R. Khan, Kenneth Kilgore, David Knox, Todd Knox, Joseph C. Kruger, Vicky Kruger, Beatrice E. Kubu, Catherine A. Kubu, Stanley Kubu, Susan Kubu−Jones, Carol Lacher, Herbert Y. Li, Herman Y Li, Roger Y Li, Siu May Li, Chi Wai Low, Mary Ann Mallis, Paul L. Mallis, Howard Mangen, Mangen Group Inc, John D. Mascali, Bethany McClam, Carol K. McManus, Lynn R. McNeely, Metro Management Systems Inc, Midas Enterprises Corporation, Tyrey Mills, Syed Musavi, Roy D. Newport, Newport Plaintiffs, Erik Nieland, OC Burger Partners, LLC, P. A. & B. Investments, Inc., Paragon Management Services, Inc., George Partida, Hiten Patel, Jayant F. Patel, Pravin F. Patel, Vimal Patel, Patel Brothers Inc, Carol Picchi, Vetit Piyas, Piyas Corporation, Jose F. Placencia, Progressive Management Services, Inc., Puja Restaurant Group Inc, Larry D. Ralston, Kyle Redding, Reddy Holly LP, Reeddy, Inc., Rituraj Investments, Inc., Donna Rubin, Joseph Rubin, SFO EQUITIES, LLC, SJ Quickbite Inc, SRAC Holdings I, Inc., Ron Sarfaty, Diemar E. Schott, Shenandoah Valley Enterprises Inc, Clifton Shigaki, William Showen, Ella A. Smothers, Goldene Springer, James W. Stinnett, Judy G. Stinnett, Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II, LLC, Robert K. Swift, Wai−Mau Szeto, Tri−City Foods Inc, Kathryn Tyler, Union Foods Corp., Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Jose Villaflor, Susan A. Villaflor, Asit Vyas, Priscilla Walker, Lorraine D. Whitehurst, Richard G. Whitehurst, Marsha Shining Woman, Joseph K. Wong, David C. Wurts, Daniel Xenos, Peggy E. Yeager, Thomas E. Yeager, John Yee, Shakeb H. Zuberi. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 53 of 57

02/08/2012 02/24/2012 02/28/2012
02/29/2012

Order)(Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 2/7/2012) (Entered: 02/07/2012)
200 ORDER ENLARGING TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Hon. William Alsup granting 199 Stipulation.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2012) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
201 Minute Entry: Further Settlement Conference held on 2/23/12 before Judge Spero. Attorney conference set for 4/4/12 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom D. (Court Reporter Not Reported.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/24/2012) (Entered: 02/24/2012)
202 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 181 Order filed by Elizabeth Baker, Masroor A. Batla, Tallat Batla, Batla Restaurant Group, Inc., Bayshore Foods Inc, Beach City Inc, Luis Boyance, Chris G. Bredesen, Bonita B. Brening, Gregory R. Brening, Brening Enterprises Inc, Brening Enterprises LP, Brening Enterprises No. 3 Inc, Brening Enterprises No. 4, Inc., Richard A. Brening, Jr., Leslie Broadland, Alfred Brown, Burger InvestCo, LLC, Burger King Corporation, Dean Frank Busch, Sr, Nancy Mae Busch, C&L 28 Inc, C&R Foods Inc, C&S Foods Inc, Cal Burg, Inc., Card Investment, Incorporated, Anne Casey, Centennial Restaurants LLC, Benjamin Kuo−An Chang, Chung Ching Chang, Huei L. Chang, Angela Chen, Chris Chen, Andrew J. Cherng, Hansa V. Chhaddva, Robert T. Chiu, William Sein Chow, Daniel Y. Chu, Patsy P. Chu, Chu Investment Inc, Marshall J. Chuang, Jae Chung, Cimm's Incorporated, Lawrence P. Cimmarusti, Ralph J. Cimmarusti, Charles D. Cobb, Jerry M. Comstock, Willie C. Cook, Byron Crossen, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Danabo Arcadia Restaurant Ventures LLC, David J. Davis, Kitty Dean, Deep Valley Enterprises Incorporated, Dara Dejbakhsh, Desert Restaurant Ventures, LLC, Balbir S. Dhillon, Dhillon ABS Investment Inc, Roland Eddy, Vincent F. Eupierre, Eureka Fortune Inc, Evergreen Restaurant Group, Evergreen Restaurant Group California Inc, William Farber, Richard Felix, Jorge Finkelberg, Wilawan Foo, Francisco Foods, Inc., 952 Enterprises LLC, Donna B. Agins, Richard H. Agins, Nasser Aliabadi, Jagdish R. Amin, Antelope Valley Restaurants, Inc., Arcadia Restaurant Ventures, LLC, Carolyn P. Arnold, B−Y−J Partners, SCOTT A BRENING, Allan B. Gantes, George J. Gantes, John D. Gantes, Gate 74 Inc, Geboy de Tijuana SA de CV, Geboy, Inc., Gary H. Geiger, Amarjeet Ghai, Charanjit Ghai, Harshraj Ghai, Albert Gonzalez, Kathleen Gonzalez, Granya, Inc., HG Foods LLC, HKR Restaurants, Inc. n/k/a WD Restaurant #1937, David Lynwood Hairston, Elham Hakimianpour, Herbert Hakimianpour, Robert Hakimianpour, Violet Hakimianpour, Hakimianpour Santa Monica Group, L.L.C., Gussie Hampton, Uverda Harry, Lynn A. Hartje, Terry O. Hartshorn, Daniel Hernandez, Dominic Ho, J and A Food Service Inc, JimRich Restaurant Investment Corporation, Jenilyn Jimenez, Geoffrey A. Jones, Kern Desert Foods, Inc., Abdul R. Khan, Kenneth Kilgore, David Knox, Todd Knox, Joseph C. Kruger, Vicky Kruger, Beatrice E. Kubu, Catherine A. Kubu, Stanley Kubu, Susan Kubu−Jones, Carol Lacher, Herbert Y. Li, Herman Y Li, Roger Y Li, Siu May Li, Chi Wai Low, Mary Ann Mallis, Paul L. Mallis, Howard Mangen, Mangen Group Inc, John D. Mascali, Bethany McClam, Carol K. McManus, Lynn R. McNeely, Metro Management Systems Inc, Midas Enterprises Corporation, Tyrey Mills, Syed Musavi, Roy D. Newport, Newport Plaintiffs, Erik Nieland, OC Burger Partners, LLC, P. A. & B. Investments, Inc., Paragon Management Services, Inc., George Partida, Hiten Patel, Jayant F. Patel, Pravin F. Patel, Vimal Patel, Patel Brothers Inc, Carol Picchi, Vetit Piyas, Piyas Corporation, Jose F. Placencia, Progressive Management Services, Inc., Puja Restaurant Group Inc, Larry D. Ralston, Kyle Redding, Reddy Holly LP, Reeddy, Inc., Rituraj Investments, Inc., Donna Rubin, Joseph Rubin, SFO EQUITIES, LLC, SJ Quickbite Inc, SRAC Holdings I, Inc., Ron Sarfaty, Diemar E. Schott, Shenandoah Valley Enterprises Inc, Clifton Shigaki, William Showen, Ella A. Smothers, Goldene Springer, James W. Stinnett, Judy G. Stinnett, Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II, LLC, Robert K. Swift, Wai−Mau Szeto, Tri−City Foods Inc, Kathryn Tyler, Union Foods Corp., Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Jose Villaflor, Susan A. Villaflor, Asit Vyas, Priscilla Walker, Lorraine D. Whitehurst, Richard G. Whitehurst, Marsha Shining Woman, Joseph K. Wong, David C. Wurts, Daniel Xenos, Peggy E. Yeager, Thomas E. Yeager, John Yee, Shakeb H. Zuberi. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 2/28/2012) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
203 ORDER ENLARGING TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Hon. William Alsup granting 202 Stipulation.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/29/2012) (Entered: 02/29/2012)

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 54 of 57

04/05/2012 204 Minute Entry: FurtherSettlement Conference held on 4/4/12 before Magistrate Judge Spero. Further settlement conference set for 4/13/12 at 9:30 AM. (Court Reporter Not Reported.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/5/2012) (Entered: 04/05/2012)

04/05/2012

205 Notice and Order Setting Further Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Further Settlement Conference set for 4/13/2012 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 4/5/12. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2012) (Entered: 04/05/2012)

04/10/2012

206 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 181 Order Enlarging Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Burger King Corporation, Anne Casey, Jerry M. Comstock, Willie C. Cook, Judy Cutler, Danabo Arcadia Restaurant Ventures LLC, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Newport Plaintiffs, Erik Nieland, P. A. & B. Investments, Inc., George Partida, Carol Picchi, SRAC Holdings I, Inc., Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II, LLC, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 4/10/2012) (Entered: 04/10/2012)

04/11/2012 207 ORDER ENLARGING TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Hon. William Alsup granting in part and denying in part 206 Stipulation.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2012) (Entered: 04/11/2012)

04/16/2012 208 Minute Entry: FurtherSettlement Conference held on 4/13/12 before Magistrate Judge Spero. Further settlement conf. set for 5/10/12 at Noon. (Court Reporter Not Reported.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/16/2012) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

04/16/2012

209 Notice and Order Setting Further Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Further Settlement Conference set for 5/10/2012 at 12:00 PM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 4/16/12. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2012) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

04/24/2012

210 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 181 Order Enlarging Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Elizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Burger King Corporation, Anne Casey, Jerry M. Comstock, Willie C. Cook, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Daniel Hernandez, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Newport Plaintiffs, Erik Nieland, P. A. & B. Investments, Inc., George Partida, Carol Picchi, SRAC Holdings I, Inc., Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II, LLC, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 4/24/2012) (Entered: 04/24/2012)

04/25/2012 211 ORDER ENLARGING TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Hon. William Alsup granting 210 Stipulation.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/25/2012) (Entered: 04/25/2012)

05/08/2012

212 Notice and Order ADVANCING Time for Further Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Further Settlement Conference set for 5/10/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 5/8/12. (klh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2012) Modified on 5/9/2012 (mjj2S, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/08/2012)

05/09/2012 213 ORDER CLARIFYING ATTENDANCE AT THE SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ON MAY 10, 2012. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 5/9/12. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2012) (Entered: 05/09/2012)

05/11/2012

214 Minute Entry: Further Settlement Conference held on 5/10/12 before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.Final settlement agreements shall be signed on or before June 1, 2012, and a Motion for Preliminary Approval shall be filed on or before June 15, 2012.(Court Reporter Not Reported.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/11/2012) (Entered: 05/11/2012)

06/14/2012 215 MOTION for Settlement Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement filed by Mohan Vallabhapurapu. Motion Hearing set for 7/5/2012 08:00 AM in

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 55 of 57

06/14/2012 06/14/2012 06/14/2012
06/14/2012 06/14/2012
06/20/2012 06/20/2012 06/26/2012 06/26/2012 06/28/2012 07/02/2012 07/02/2012

Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 6/28/2012. Replies due by 7/5/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Timothy P. Fox in Support of Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement)(Campins, Julia) (Filed on 6/14/2012) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
216 Proposed Order re 215 MOTION for Settlement Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement by Mohan Vallabhapurapu. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Settlement Agreement, # 2 Exhibit B − Proposed Long Form Notice 1, # 3 Exhibit C − Proposed Long Form Notice 2, # 4 Exhibit D − Proposed Short Form Notice)(Campins, Julia) (Filed on 6/14/2012) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
217 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibit F to Settlement Agreement filed by Mohan Vallabhapurapu. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Julia Campins, # 2 Proposed Order)(Campins, Julia) (Filed on 6/14/2012) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
218 MOTION to Certify Class for Settlement Purposes filed by Mohan Vallabhapurapu. Motion Hearing set for 7/5/2012 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 6/28/2012. Replies due by 7/5/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Caitlin Anderson in Support of Motion for Certification of Settlement Classes, # 2 Exhibit 1−39 to Declaration of Caitlin Anderson, # 3 Declaration of Timothy P. Fox in Support of Motion for Certification of Settlement Classes, # 4 Proposed Order)(Campins, Julia) (Filed on 6/14/2012) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
219 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint,, filed by Mohan Vallabhapurapu. Motion Hearing set for 7/5/2012 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 6/28/2012. Replies due by 7/5/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed First Amended Complaint)(Campins, Julia) (Filed on 6/14/2012) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
220 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 219 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint,, , 218 MOTION to Certify Class for Settlement Purposes, 215 MOTION for Settlement Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement Stipulation to Expedite Hearings filed by Mohan Vallabhapurapu. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Julia Campins in Support of Stipulation to Expedite Hearings)(Campins, Julia) (Filed on 6/14/2012) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
221 ORDER GRANTING EXPEDITED HEARING by Hon. William Alsup granting 220 Stipulation.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2012) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 218 MOTION to Certify Class for Settlement Purposes, 215 MOTION for Settlement Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement, 219 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint,, . Motion Hearing set for 7/2/2012 01:00 PM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2012) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
222 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL by Hon. William Alsup granting 217 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2012) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
223 DOCUMENT E−FILED UNDER SEAL re 222 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibit F to Settlement Agreement by Mohan Vallabhapurapu. (Campins, Julia) (Filed on 6/26/2012) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
224 EXHIBIT F to Settlement Agreement filed byMohan Vallabhapurapu. DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL (dtm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2012) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
225 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT by Hon. William Alsup granting 219 Motion to Amend/Correct ; plaintiff is required to E−FILE the amended document.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2012) (Entered: 07/02/2012)
226 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Burger King Corporation. Filed byElizabeth Baker, Alfred Brown, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Ron Sarfaty, William Showen, Goldene Springer, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker,

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 56 of 57

07/02/2012 07/02/2012 07/02/2012 07/02/2012
08/27/2012
09/10/2012 10/02/2012 10/10/2012 10/12/2012
10/12/2012 10/25/2012 10/26/2012

Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Fox, Timothy) (Filed on 7/2/2012) (Entered: 07/02/2012)
227 ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASSES by Hon. William Alsup granting 218 Motion to Certify Class. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2012) (Entered: 07/02/2012)
228 ORDER REGARDING NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND SETTING FAIRNESS HEARING DATE by Hon. William Alsup granting 215 Motion for Settlement.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2012) (Entered: 07/02/2012)
Set/Reset Hearing Fairness Hearing set for 10/25/2012 03:00 PM. (dtm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2012) (Entered: 07/03/2012)
229 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 7/2/2012 before Judge William Alsup (Date Filed: 7/2/2012) re 219 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint,, filed by Mohan Vallabhapurapu, 218 MOTION to Certify Class for Settlement Purposes filed by Mohan Vallabhapurapu, 215 MOTION for Settlement Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement filed by Mohan Vallabhapurapu. Motion taken under submission. (Court Reporter Sahar Bartlett.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/2/2012) (Entered: 07/03/2012)
230 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Mohan Vallabhapurapu. Motion Hearing set for 10/25/2012 03:00 PM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 9/10/2012. Replies due by 9/17/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Lee Decl in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, # 2 Declaration Fox Decl in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, # 3 Declaration Mayeda Decl in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, # 4 Declaration Pearl Decl in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, # 5 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs)(Lah, Andrew) (Filed on 8/27/2012) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
231 ORDER RE PRE−TRIAL CONFERENCE AND TRIAL DATES 43 Case Management Scheduling Order, Set Hearings,, (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2012) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
232 ORDER RE FAIRNESS HEARING (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2012) (Entered: 10/02/2012)
233 NOTICE of Change of Address by Nicole Ann Bolson (Bolson, Nicole) (Filed on 10/10/2012) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
234 Joint MOTION for Settlement Final Approval filed by Mohan Vallabhapurapu. Motion Hearing set for 10/25/2012 03:00 PM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. Responses due by 10/26/2012. Replies due by 11/2/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Lah Declaration ISO Motion for Final Approval, # 2 Declaration Keough Declaration ISO Motion for Final Approval, # 3 Declaration Joblove Declaration ISO Motion for Final Approval)(Lee, Bill) (Filed on 10/12/2012) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
235 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Settlement by Mohan Vallabhapurapu. (Lee, Bill) (Filed on 10/12/2012) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
236 Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 10/25/2012 before William Alsup (Date Filed: 10/25/2012) re 234 Joint MOTION for Settlement Final Approval filed by Mohan Vallabhapurapu, 230 MOTION for Attorney Fees Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed by Mohan Vallabhapurapu. (Court Reporter Kathy Wyatt.) (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/25/2012) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
237 Transcript of Proceedings held on 10−25−12, before Judge William Alsup. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Wyatt, Telephone number 925−212−5224. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request

Case: 3:11-cv-00667-WHA As of: 09/20/2015 10:48 AM PDT 57 of 57

10/29/2012 10/31/2012 12/27/2012
02/28/2013
03/05/2013 04/16/2013 04/18/2013

Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/24/2013. (kpw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2012) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
238 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT; MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS by Hon. William Alsup granting 234 Motion for Settlement.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2012) (Entered: 10/29/2012)
239 JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Alsup on 10/31/12. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2012) (Entered: 10/31/2012)
240 STIPULATION BKC and Franchisee/Third Party Defendants' Voluntary Stipulation for Dismissal of Action with Prejudice by Burger King Corp., Willie C. Cook, Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II, LLC, SRAC Holdings I, Inc., and Jeffrey Comstock, Arcadia Restaurant Ventures, LLC, Danabo Arcadia Restaurant Ventures LLC, Dara Dejbakhsh and Desert Restaurant Ventures, LLC, John D. Mascali, Summit Equity Group, Inc., and Clifton Shigaki, Third Party Defendants/Counter−Claimants Roy D. Newport, et al. as listed on Ex. A filed by Burger King Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Joblove, Michael) (Filed on 12/27/2012) (Entered: 12/27/2012)
241 MOTION to Shorten Time to Consider Unopposed Motion for Leave to Extend by Four Weeks the Period to Distribute a Portion of Settlement Fund filed by Mohan Vallabhapurapu. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Andrew Lah in Support of Motion to Shorten Time to Consider Unopposed Motion for Leave to Extend by Four Weeks the Period to Distribute a Portion of Settlement Fund, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Jennifer M. Keough in Support of Motion to Shorten Time to Consider Unopposed Motion for Leave to Extend by Four Weeks the Period to Distribute a Portion of Settlement Fund, # 3 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to Extend by Four Weeks the Period to Distribute a Portion of Settlement Fund)(Lee, Bill) (Filed on 2/28/2013) Modified on 2/28/2013 (dtmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/28/2013)
242 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXTEND DISTRIBUTION PERIOD by Hon. William Alsup granting 241 Motion to Shorten Time.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2013) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
243 Letter from Mozella Sims. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2013) (Entered: 04/17/2013)
244 RESPONSE to re 243 Letter by Katherine Adams, Elizabeth Baker, Lynda Bowman, Alfred Brown, Teresa Brown Gaulitz, Jamie Coleman, Judy Cutler, Diane Dailey, Kitty Dean, William Farber, Richard Felix, Sheila Flaherty, Kathleen Gonzalez, Uverda Harry, Jenilyn Jimenez, Kenneth Kilgore, Carol Lacher, Lisa Lothridge, Diane Mackie, Bethany McClam, Tyrey Mills, Erik Nieland, Pia Parker, George Partida, Carol Picchi, Coleen Rairdon Brainard, Geri Samuel, Ron Sarfaty, William Sheehan, William Showen, Barry Smith, Goldene Springer, David Thomas, Kathryn Tyler, Mohan Vallabhapurapu, Priscilla Walker, John Whited, Marsha Shining Woman, Daniel Xenos. (Fox, Timothy) (Filed on 4/18/2013) (Entered: 04/18/2013)