Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02136/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02136-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS TORRES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 RITE AID CORP.,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-02136 WHA

CORRECTED ORDER RE

FURTHER EVIDENCE (changing

due date)

Plaintiff and defendant are ORDERED to submit evidence of whether the Rite Aid store

in Pittsburg that is the subject of this case was designed and constructed for first occupancy

after January 26, 1993, within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 12183(a)(1) and 28 C.F.R. 36.401(a). 

This order recognizes that plaintiff already submitted evidence that a building permit was issued

in 1989. This is not, however, necessarily dispositive. The building may still have been

designed and constructed for first occupancy after January 26, 1993, within the meaning of the

statute and regulations, if, after that date, the city issued the building’s first certificate of

occupancy and there was either another application for a building permit or an application for a

building permit extension. See 28 C.F.R. 36.401(a)(2). 

The parties also are ORDERED to submit evidence on whether or not any alteration of

the structure of the aisles or permanent shelving of the store — excluding the protruding objects

at issue in this case or any other moveable items — began after January 26, 1992. 

Case 3:05-cv-02136-WHA Document 44 Filed 01/19/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

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

2

This EVIDENCE IS DUE BY NOON, FEBRUARY 2, 2006. The evidentiary order given

orally at the motions hearing is rescinded. Defendant is not subject to this order if production of

this evidence is contrary to its interests in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02136-WHA Document 44 Filed 01/19/06 Page 2 of 2