Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00949/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00949-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12188 Americans With Disabilities Act - Civil Enforcement Actions

---

1 

18cv949 JM (BGS) 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SCOTT SCHUTZA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SO CAL TRUCK ACCESSORIES & 

EQUIPMENT, a California corporation; 

and Does 1-10, 

Defendants. 

 Case No.: 18cv949 JM (BGS) 

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

ORDER 

On September 11, 2019, Plaintiff Scott Schutza (“Plaintiff”) moved for summary 

judgment on his claims brought under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and 

California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”) based on denial of an accessible parking 

space, entrance doorway and transaction counter at So Cal Trucks located at 10460 Mission 

Gorge Road in Santee, California, on January 29, 2018. (Doc. No. 28.) Plaintiff requested 

injunctive relief and statutory damages. (Doc. 28-1 at 13-15.) Defendant So Cal Truck 

Accessories & Equipment (“Defendant”) filed no opposition or statement of nonopposition. A hearing on the motion was held on October 21, 2019. Neither Defendant 

nor its counsel appeared at the hearing. For the reasons stated below, the motion is 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

If a party fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact, the court may 

“grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials – including the facts 

Case 3:18-cv-00949-JM-BGS Document 31 Filed 10/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

18cv949 JM (BGS) 

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

considered undisputed – show that the movant is entitled to it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). 

Under Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c., if an opposing party fails to file an opposition or statement of 

non-opposition, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting of the motion. The 

Ninth Circuit has made clear, however, that “a nonmoving party’s failure to [file an 

opposition] does not excuse the moving party’s affirmative duty under Rule 56 to 

demonstrate its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.” Martinez v. Stanford, 

323 F.3d 1178, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination in public accommodations. Kohler v. 

Bed Bath & Beyond of California, LLC, 780 F.3d 1260, 1263 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation 

omitted). A plaintiff is denied public accommodations on the basis of disability if there 

was a violation of “applicable accessibility standards.” Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp., 

816 F. Supp. 2d 831, 847 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (citations omitted). A facility’s accessibility 

is defined in part by the ADA Accessibility Guidelines. Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) 

Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 945 (9th Cir. 2011). A plaintiff can demonstrate denial of public 

accommodations “if the defendant failed to remove architectural barriers where such 

removal was readily achievable.” Lozano v. C.A. Martinez Family Ltd. P’ship, 

129 F. Supp. 3d 967, 972 (S.D. Cal. 2015); see also 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). 

With respect to So Cal Truck’s parking space reserved for persons with disabilities, 

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because he does 

not show that the slope of the parking space was measured in accordance with ADA 

standards. See Langer v. Garcia, Case No. 18cv2374 VAP (FFMx), 2019 WL 1581407, 

at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2019) (finding that the running and cross slopes must be calculated 

by comparing the respective ends of the parking space). Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment as to the parking space is therefore DENIED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. If 

Plaintiff chooses to file an amended motion addressing this issue he must do so by 

November 4, 2019. Defendant shall have up to and including November 18, 2019 to file 

its response in opposition and Plaintiff shall have up to and including November 28, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-00949-JM-BGS Document 31 Filed 10/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

18cv949 JM (BGS) 

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

to file his reply. The court sets a tentative hearing date of December 16, 2019. All other 

dates in the court’s scheduling order (Doc. No. 22) remain in effect. 

With respect to So Cal Truck’s entrance doorway and transaction counter, during 

the hearing Plaintiff’s counsel conceded that, as of May 7, 2019, the entrance doorway and 

transaction counter were compliant with ADA standards. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive 

relief as to the entrance doorway and transaction counter is therefore DENIED AS MOOT. 

It can be inferred, however, that they would not have been remedied but for Plaintiff’s 

efforts. Furthermore, Plaintiff submitted sufficient proof that he was denied an accessible 

entrance doorway and transaction counter based on the declaration from Plaintiff’s 

investigator that on May 7, 2018 the entrance doorway measured 26 inches wide and the 

transaction counter measured 39 inches high. (Doc. No. 28-1 at 6.) Plaintiff points to ADA 

standards requiring entrance doorways to be at least 32 inches wide and requiring a portion 

of transaction counters to be no more than 36 inches high. (Doc. Nos. 7 at 6, 28-1 at 11.) 

Plaintiff has also established an Unruh Act violation because the discrimination 

suffered by Plaintiff occurred within California. Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the Arts, 370 F.3d 

837, 847 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that violating the ADA is a per se violation of the Unruh 

Act); CAL. CIV. CODE § 51(f) (providing that “[a] violation of the right of any individual 

under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 . . . . shall also constitute a violation of 

this section”). Under the Unruh Act, defendants are liable “for each and every offense for 

the actual damages, and any amount . . . . up to a maximum of three times the amount of 

actual damage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000).” CAL. CIV. CODE 

§ 52(a). In his Complaint, Plaintiff requests the statutory minimum of $4,000. (Doc. No. 

7 at 8.) Accordingly, the court awards Plaintiff $4,000 in statutory damages based on the 

barriers he encountered on his visit to So Cal Trucks on January 29, 2018. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 24, 2019 JEFFREY T. MILLER 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-00949-JM-BGS Document 31 Filed 10/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3