Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01405/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01405-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

1

THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH (State Bar No. 074414)

THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH,

A Professional Law Corporation

2806 Van Ness Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94109

Telephone: 415/674-8600

Facsimile: 415/674-9900

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CRAIG YATES 

and DISABILITY RIGHTS

ENFORCEMENT, EDUCATION, 

SERVICES: HELPING YOU 

HELP OTHERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CRAIG YATES, an individual; and

DISABILITY RIGHTS, ENFORCEMENT,

EDUCATION, SERVICES:HELPING YOU

HELP OTHERS, a California public benefit

corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BELLI DELI; WILLIAM ROGERS as

TRUSTEE of PEGGY R. VAN ALYEA

1998 TRUST UTD; DONG J. HOMER and

YOUNG B. HOMER individuals dba

BELLI DELI, 

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C07-1405-WHA 

Civil Rights

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES:

1 CAUSE OF ACTION: For Denial of Access st

by a Public Accommodation in Violation of the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42

U.S.C. §12101, et seq.)

2 CAUSE OF ACTION: For Denial of Full nd

and Equal Access in Violation of California

Civil Code §§54, 54.1 and 54.3

3 CAUSE OF ACTION: For Denial of rd

Accessible Sanitary Facilities in Violation of

California Health & Safety Code §19955, et seq.

4 CAUSE OF ACTION: For Denial of th

Access to Full and Equal Accommodations,

Advantages, Facilities, Privileges and/or

Services in Violation of California Civil Code

§51, et seq. (The Unruh Civil Rights Act)

DEMAND FOR JURY

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 5 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

3

nucleus of operative facts and arising out of the same transactions, are also brought under parallel

California law, whose goals are closely tied with the ADA, including but not limited to violations

of California Civil Code §51, et seq. and §54, et seq., California Health & Safety Code §19955 et

seq., including §19959; Title 24 California Building Standards Code.

4. Venue: Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) and is

founded on the facts that the real property which is the subject of this action is located at/near

1304 2nd Street, in the City of San Rafael, County of Marin, State of California, and that

plaintiffs’ causes of action arose in this county.

PARTIES:

5. Plaintiff CRAIG YATES is a “physically handicapped person”, a “physically

disabled person”, and a “person with physical disabilities” (hereinafter the terms “physically

disabled”, “physically handicapped” and “person with physical disabilities” are used

interchangeably, as these words have similar or identical common usage and legal meaning, but

the legislative scheme in Part 5.5 of the Health & Safety Code uses the term “physically

handicapped persons” and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, §§51, 51.5, 54, 54.1 and 55, and other

statutory measures refer to protection of the rights of “physically disabled persons”). Plaintiff

CRAIG YATES is a “person with physical disabilities”, as defined by all applicable California

and United States laws. Plaintiff CRAIG YATES is a paraplegic Plaintiff CRAIG YATES

requires the use of a wheelchair to travel about in public. Consequently, plaintiff CRAIG

YATES is a member of that portion of the public whose rights are protected by the provisions of

Health & Safety Code §19955, et seq. (entitled “Access to Public Accommodations by Physically

Handicapped Persons”) and the protections of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code §§51 and

51.5 the Disabled Persons Act, Civil Code §54, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42

U.S.C. §12101, et seq.

6. Plaintiff DISABILITY RIGHTS, ENFORCEMENT, EDUCATION, SERVICES:

HELPING YOU HELP OTHERS (“DREES”) is a nonprofit (501(c)(3)) organization that works

with persons with disabilities to empower them to be independent in American society. DREES

accomplishes its goals and purposes through education on disability issues, enforcement of the

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 6 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

2

Plaintiffs CRAIG YATES, an individual; and DISABILITY RIGHTS, ENFORCEMENT,

EDUCATION, SERVICES: HELPING YOU HELP OTHERS, a California public benefit

corporation (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “DREES”), complain of defendants BELLI

DELI; WILLIAM ROGERS as TRUSTEE of PEGGY R. VAN ALYEA 1998 TRUST UTD;

DONG J. HOMER and YOUNG B. HOMER individuals dba BELLI DELI and allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION:

1. This is a civil rights action for discrimination against persons with physical

disabilities, of which class plaintiff CRAIG YATES and the membership of DREES are

members, for failure to remove architectural barriers structural in nature at defendants’ BELLI

DELI, a place of public accommodation, thereby discriminatorily denying plaintiffs and the class

of other similarly situated persons with physical disabilities access to, the full and equal

enjoyment of, opportunity to participate in, and benefit from, the goods, facilities, services, and

accommodations thereof. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages pursuant to the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq.; California Civil Code §§51,

51.5 and 54, et seq.; and California Health & Safety Code §19955, et seq.

2. Plaintiff CRAIG YATES is a person with physical disabilities who, on or about

August 1, 2006, August 29, 2006, January 25, 2007, May 9, 2007, June 8, 2007, June 30, 2007,

July 8, 2007, July 13, 2007 and September 21, 2007, was an invitee, guest, patron, customer at

defendants’ BELLI DELI, in the City of San Rafael, California. At said time and place,

defendants failed to provide proper legal access to the delicatessen and market, which is a

“public accommodation” and/or a “public facility” including, but not limited entrance, parking,

path of travel, and restroom. The denial of access was in violation of both federal and California

legal requirements, and plaintiff CRAIG YATES suffered violation of his civil rights to full and

equal access, and was embarrassed and humiliated. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE:

3. Jurisdiction: This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1331 for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq. 

Pursuant to pendant jurisdiction, attendant and related causes of action, arising from the same

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 7 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

4

rights of persons with disabilities, and the provision of services to persons with disabilities, the

general public, public agencies and the private business sector. DREES brings this action on

behalf of its members, many of whom are persons with physical disabilities and whom have

standing in their right to bring this action.

7. That members of DREES, like plaintiff CRAIG YATES, will or have been guests

and invitees at the subject BELLI DELI, and that the interests of plaintiff DREES in removing

architectural barriers at the subject BELLI DELI advance the purposes of DREES to assure that

all public accommodations, including the subject BELLI DELI, are accessible to independent use

by mobility-impaired persons. The relief sought by plaintiff DREES as alleged herein is purely

statutory in nature.

8. Defendants WILLIAM ROGERS as TRUSTEE of PEGGY R. VAN ALYEA

1998 TRUST UTD, DONG J. HOMER and YOUNG B. HOMER individuals dba BELLI DELI

(hereinafter alternatively collectively referred to as “defendants”) are the owners and operators,

lessors and/or lessees, or agents of the owners, lessors and/or lessees, of the public

accommodation known as BELLI DELI, located at/near 1304 2nd Street, San Rafael, California,

or of the building and/or buildings which constitute said public accommodation. 

9. At all times relevant to this complaint, defendants WILLIAM ROGERS as

TRUSTEE of PEGGY R. VAN ALYEA 1998 TRUST UTD, DONG J. HOMER and YOUNG

B. HOMER individuals dba BELLI DELI , own and operate in joint venture the subject BELLI

DELI as a public accommodation. This business is open to the general public and conducts

business therein. The business is a “public accommodation” or “public facility” subject to the

requirements of California Civil Code §§51, 51.5 and 54, et seq., Health and Safety code §19955,

et seq., and the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq. 

10. At all times relevant to this complaint, defendants WILLIAM ROGERS as

TRUSTEE of PEGGY R. VAN ALYEA 1998 TRUST UTD; DONG J. HOMER and YOUNG

B. HOMER individuals dba BELLI DELI are jointly and severally responsible to identify and

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 8 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

5

 remove architectural barriers at the subject pursuant to Code of Federal Regulations title 28,

section 36.201(b), which states in pertinent part:

§ 36.201 General

(b) Landlord and tenant responsibilities. Both the landlord

who owns the building that houses a place of public

accommodation and the tenant who owns or operates the place of

public accommodation are public accommodations subject to the

requirements of this part. As between the parties, allocation of

responsibility for complying with the obligations of this part may

be determined by lease or other contract.

28 CFR §36.201(b)

PRELIMINARY FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS:

11. The BELLI DELI, is a delicatessen and market, located at/near 1304 2nd Street,

San Rafael, California. The BELLI DELI, its entrance, parking, path of travel, and restroom, and

its other facilities are each a “place of public accommodation or facility” subject to the barrier

removal requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On information and belief, each

such facility has, since July 1, 1970, undergone “alterations, structural repairs and additions”,

each of which has subjected the BELLI DELI and each of its facilities, its entrance, parking, path

of travel, and restroom to disability access requirements per the Americans with Disabilities Act

Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), and Title 24 of the California Code of regulations (Title 24).

12. At all times stated herein, plaintiff CRAIG YATES was a member of DREES.

13. At all times referred to herein and continuing to the present time, defendants, and

each of them, advertised, publicized and held out the BELLI DELI as being handicapped

accessible and handicapped usable.

14. On or about August 1, 2006, August 29, 2006, January 25, 2007, May 9, 2007,

June 8, 2007, June 30, 2007, July 8, 2007, July 13, 2007 and September 21, 2007, plaintiff

CRAIG YATES was an invitee and guest at the subject BELLI DELI, for purposes of purchasing

food, beverages and sundries. 

15. On or about August 1, 2006, plaintiff CRAIG YATES entered the parking lot at

BELLI DELI and was unable to find any parking for the disabled. Plaintiff was almost blocked

by another vehicle. Plaintiff spoke to that individual and he moved his vehicle. 

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 9 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

6

16. At said time and place, plaintiff CRAIG YATES wheeled toward the entrance to

BELLI DELI and saw that there was no designated path of travel into the deli. That the entrance

could be blocked by vehicles. Plaintiff also noticed that the sidewalk in front of BELLI DELI was

narrow. That other tenants of the BELLI DELI building, doors opened out onto the sidewalk

which would prevents wheelchair users from using the sidewalk and entering other businesses. 

17. On or about August 8, 2006, plaintiff CRAIG YATES wrote the landlord and

tenant about the above-referenced architectural barriers. 

18. On or about August 17, 2006, plaintiff CRAIG YATES received a letter from

Julie Van Alyea that they and the tenant would be working on the problem. 

19. On or about August 28, 2006, plaintiff CRAIG YATES wrote Julie Van Alyea

and suggested that three months should be enough time to remedy the situation. 

20. On or about August 29, 2006, plaintiff CRAIG YATES returned to BELLI DELI.

Plaintiff encountered all the referenced architectural barriers stated herein.

21. On or about September 6, 2006, plaintiff CRAIG YATES received a letter from

Julie Van Alyea in substance indicating that remedial measures may start within four to six

weeks.

22. On or about January 25, 2007, plaintiff CRAIG YATES returned to BELLI DELI.

Plaintiff CRAIG YATES had difficulty parking and encountered all architectural barriers

heretofore referred and then encountered a restroom which was not accessible. 

23. On or about January 25, 2007, Plaintiff CRAIG YATES spoke with an Asian

woman at BELLI DELI who represented herself to be one of the managing parties of BELLI

DELI. Plaintiff CRAIG YATES informed her that the restroom was not accessible and inquired

as to when the parking would be fixed. She replied in substance that it was the landlord’s

responsibility.

24. At said time and place, plaintiff CRAIG YATES formulated an opinion that the

landlord and tenant had no intention to identify and remove architectural barriers. 

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 10 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

7

25. On or about May 9, 2007, June 8, 2007, June 30, 2007, plaintiff CRAIG YATES

returned to the BELLI DELI and encountered all of the same architectural barriers referenced

herein.

26. On or about July 8, 2007, plaintiff CRAIG YATES was able to park in a handicap

 van accessible stall at Belli Deli. Plaintiff CRAIG YATES proceeded to have food and

beverage. Plaintiff CRAIG YATES then needed to use the restroom. Plaintiff CRAIG YATES

requested to use the restroom, but an Asian woman informed him in substance, that it was still

not accessible and that she was awaiting permits to do the remedial work.

27. On or about July 13, 2007, plaintiff CRAIG YATES patronized BELLI DELI.

 Plaintiff used the services of BELLI DELI and then asked to use the restroom. The same Asian

woman informed him in substance, that the restroom was still not compliant. Plaintiff CRAIG

YATES then left. 

28. On or about September 21, 2007, plaintiff CRAIG YATES returned to BELLI

DELI and found that the restroom remained inaccessible. 

29. Therefore, at said times and place, plaintiff CRAIG YATES, a person with a

disability, encountered the following inaccessible elements of the subject BELLI DELI which

constituted architectural barriers and a denial of the proper and legally-required access to a public

accommodation to persons with physical disabilities including, but not limited to:

a. lack of disabled van accessible parking stall(s);

b. lack of handicapped accessible parking signage;

c. lack of tow-a-way signage;

d. lack of an accessible entrance free from vehicles blocking it;

e. lack of a handicapped-accessible women’s public restroom;

f. lack of clear paths of travel along the sidewalk of BELLI DELI;

g. On personal knowledge, information and belief, other public facilities and

elements too numerous to list were improperly inaccessible for use by

persons with physical disabilities.

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 11 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

8

30. At all times stated herein, the existence of architectural barriers at defendants’

place of public accommodation evidenced “actual notice” of defendants’ intent not to comply

with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 either then, now or in the future. 

31. Defendants were sent multiple letters by or on behalf of plaintiff CRAIG YATES

advising of the existence of architectural barriers, requesting that they be removed. Some five

months later after communicating with defendants the architectural barriers had not been

removed . Said letters are attached hereto collectively as exhibit “A” and incorporated by

reference as though fully set forth herein. Defendants’ failure to take corrective measures

evidenced an intent not to seek or engage in an early and reasonable resolution of the matter. 

32. At all times stated herein, defendants, and each of them, were “negligent per se”

in not removing architectural barriers determined by the Department of Justice to be considered a

safety concern/safety hazard where it was readily achievable for said public accommodation to

remove barriers. The barriers and those requirements for barrier removal are found in 28 CFR 36,

and the building code to be followed is in appendix “A”, referred to as “ADAAG”. Therefore as 

a legal result of defendants breach of duty to remove those barriers encountered by plaintiff,

plaintiff suffered bodily injury.

33. As a legal result of defendants WILLIAM ROGERS as TRUSTEE of PEGGY R.

VAN ALYEA 1998 TRUST UTD; DONG J. HOMER and YOUNG B. HOMER’S failure to act

as a reasonable and prudent public accommodation in identifying, removing or creating

architectural barriers, policies, practices and procedures that denied access to plaintiffs and other

persons with disabilities, plaintiffs suffered the damages as alleged herein.

34. As a further legal result of the actions and failure to act of defendants, and as a 

legal result of the failure to provide proper handicapped-accessible public facilities as set forth

herein, plaintiffs were denied their civil rights to full and equal access to public facilities.

Plaintiff CRAIG YATES suffered a loss of his civil rights and his rights as a person with

physical disabilities to full and equal access to public facilities, and further suffered bodily injury

(including, but not limited to, fatigue, stress, strain and pain in wheeling and attempting to and/or

transferring up, on, down, to, over, around and through architectural barriers), physical

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 12 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

9

discomfort, emotional distress, mental distress, mental suffering, mental anguish, which includes,

but is not limited to, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, disappointment and worry,

expectedly and naturally associated with a person with physical disabilities being denied access,

all to his damages as prayed hereinafter in an amount within the jurisdiction of this court. No

claim is being made for mental and emotional distress over and above that usually associated

with the discrimination and physical injuries claimed, and no expert testimony regarding this

usual mental and emotional distress will be presented at trial in support of the claim for damages.

35. Defendants’, and each of their, failure to remove the architectural barriers

complained of herein created, at the time of plaintiff CRAIG YATES’s first visit to said public

accommodation, and continues to create continuous and repeated exposure to substantially the

same general harmful conditions which caused plaintiff CRAIG YATES harm as stated herein.

36. Plaintiff CRAIG YATES and the membership of DREES were denied their rights

to equal access to a public facility by defendants WILLIAM ROGERS as TRUSTEE of PEGGY

R. VAN ALYEA 1998 TRUST UTD; DONG J. HOMER and YOUNG B. HOMER, because

defendants WILLIAM ROGERS as TRUSTEE of PEGGY R. VAN ALYEA 1998 TRUST UTD;

DONG J. HOMER and YOUNG B. HOMER maintained a deli without access for persons with

physical disabilities to its facilities, including but not limited to the entrance, parking, path of

travel, and restroom, and other public areas as stated herein and continue to the date of filing this

complaint to deny equal access to plaintiffs and other persons with physical disabilities in these

and other ways. 

37. On information and belief, construction alterations carried out by defendants have

also triggered access requirements under both California law and the Americans with Disabilities

Act of 1990.

38. Plaintiffs, as described hereinbelow, seek injunctive relief to require the BELLI

DELI to be made accessible to meet the requirements of both California law and the Americans

with Disabilities Act of 1990, whichever is more restrictive, so long as defendants operate the

deli as a public facility. Plaintiffs seek damages for violation of their civil rights on August 1,

2006, August 29, 2006, January 25, 2007, May 9, 2007, June 8, 2007, June 30, 2007, July 8,

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 13 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

10

2007, July 13, 2007 and September 21, 2007, and they seek statutory damages of not less than

$4,000, pursuant to Civil Code §52(a) or alternatively $1000 pursuant to Civil Code §54.3, for

each day after his visit that plaintiff CRAIG YATES was deterred from returning to the because

of his knowledge and belief that the premises was and remains inaccessible to persons with

disabilities. 

39. On information and belief, defendants have been negligent in their affirmative

duty to identify the architectural barriers complained of herein and negligent in the removal of

some or all of said barriers.

40. Because of defendants’ violations, plaintiffs and other persons with physical

disabilities are unable to use public facilities such as those owned and operated by defendants on

a “full and equal” basis unless such facility is in compliance with the provisions of the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Civil Code §54.1 and Health & Safety Code §19955, et

seq. and other accessibility law as plead herein. Plaintiffs seek an order from this court

compelling defendants to make the BELLI DELI accessible to persons with disabilities. 

41. On information and belief, defendants have intentionally undertaken to modify

and alter existing building(s), and have failed to make them comply with accessibility

requirements under the requirements of ADAAG and Title 24. The acts and omission of

defendants, and each of them, in failing to provide the required accessible public facilities at 

the time of plaintiff’s visit and injuries, indicate actual and implied malice toward plaintiffs, and

despicable conduct carried out by defendants, and each of them, with a willful and conscious

disregard for the rights and safety of plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons, and justify a

trembling of damages as provided by Civil Code §§52(a) and 54.3, in order to make a more

profound example of defendants, and each of them, to other operators of other markets, grocery

stores, delis and other public facilities, and to punish defendants and to carry out the purposes of 

the Civil Code §§ 51, 51.5 and 54.

42. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore allege that defendants WILLIAM

ROGERS as TRUSTEE of PEGGY R. VAN ALYEA 1998 TRUST UTD; DONG J. HOMER

and YOUNG B. HOMER, and each of them, caused the subject building(s) which constitute the

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 14 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

11

BELLI DELI to be constructed, altered and maintained in such a manner that persons with

physical disabilities were denied full and equal access to, within and throughout said building(s)

of the deli and were denied full and equal use of said public facilities. Furthermore, on

information and belief, defendants have continued to maintain and operate said deli and/or its

building(s) in such conditions up to the present time, despite actual and constructive notice to

such defendants that the configuration of BELLI DELI and/or its building(s) is in violation of the

civil rights of persons with physical disabilities, such as plaintiff CRAIG YATES, the

membership of plaintiff DREES and the disability community which DREES serves. Such

construction, modification, ownership, operation, maintenance and practices of such public

facilities are in violation of Civil Code §§51, 51.5 and 54, Health and Safety Code §19955, and

the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq.

43. On personal knowledge, information and belief, the basis of defendants’ actual

and constructive notice that the physical configuration of the facilities including, but not limited

to, architectural barriers constituting the deli and/or building(s) was in violation of the civil rights

of persons with physical disabilities, such as plaintiffs, includes, but is not limited to,

communications with invitees and guests, plaintiff CRAIG YATES himself, owners of other

businesses, notices they obtained from governmental agencies upon modification, improvement,

or substantial repair of the subject premises and other properties owned by these defendants,

newspaper articles and trade publications regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

and other access laws, public service announcements by former U.S. Attorney General Janet

Reno between 1993 and 2000, and other similar information. Defendants’ failure, under state

and federal law, to make the BELLI DELI accessible is further evidence of defendants’ conscious

disregard for the rights of plaintiff and other similarly situated persons with disabilities. Despite

being informed of such effect on plaintiff and other persons with physical disabilities due to the

lack of accessible facilities, defendants, and each of them, knowingly and willfully refused to

take any steps to rectify the situation and to provide full and equal access for plaintiffs and other

persons with physical disabilities to the BELLI DELI. Said defendants, and each of them, have

continued such practices, in conscious disregard for the rights of plaintiffs and other persons with

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 15 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

12

physical disabilities, up to the date of filing of this complaint, and continuing thereon. 

Defendants had further actual knowledge of the architectural barriers referred to herein by virtue

of the demand letter addressed to the defendants and served concurrently with the summons and

complaint. Said conduct, with knowledge of the effect it was and is having on plaintiffs and

other persons with physical disabilities, constitutes despicable conduct in conscious disregard of

the rights and safety of plaintiffs and of other similarly situated persons, justifying the imposition

of treble damages per Civil Code §§52 and 54.3. 

44. Plaintiff CRAIG YATES and plaintiff DREES, on behalf of its membership and

the disability community which it serves, consisting of persons with disabilities, would, could

and will return to the subject public accommodation when it is made accessible to persons with

disabilities. 

I. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DENIAL OF ACCESS BY A PUBLIC

ACCOMMODATION IN VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH

DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 (42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq.)

(On behalf of Plaintiffs CRAIG YATES and DISABILITY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT,

EDUCATION, SERVICES: HELPING YOU HELP OTHERS, a California public

benefit corporation and Against Defendants WILLIAM ROGERS as TRUSTEE of

PEGGY R. VAN ALYEA 1998 TRUST UTD; DONG J. HOMER and YOUNG B.

HOMER, inclusive)

(42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq.)

45. Plaintiffs replead and incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth again herein,

the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 44 of this complaint. 

46. Pursuant to law, in 1990, the United States Congress made findings per 42 U.S.C.

§12101 regarding persons with physical disabilities, finding that laws were needed to more fully

protect:

some 43 million Americans with one or more physical or mental

disabilities; [that] historically society has tended to isolate and

segregate individuals with disabilities; [that] such forms of

discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a

serious and pervasive social problem; [that] the nation’s proper

goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality

of opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic

self-sufficiency for such individuals; [and that] the continuing

existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice

denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an

equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for which our free

society is justifiably famous. 

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 16 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

13

47. Congress stated as its purpose in passing the Americans with Disabilities Act of

1990 (42 U.S.C. §12102):

It is the purpose of this act (1) to provide a clear and

comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of

discrimination against individuals with disabilities; (2) to provide

clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing

discrimination against individuals with disabilities; (3) to ensure

that the Federal government plays a central role in enforcing the

standards established in this act on behalf of individuals with

disabilities; and (4) to invoke the sweep of Congressional

authority, including the power to enforce the 14th Amendment and

to regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas of

discrimination faced day to day by people with disabilities. 

48. As part of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-336

(hereinafter the “ADA”), Congress passed “Title III - Public Accommodations and Services 

Operated by Private Entities” (Section 301 42 U.S.C. §12181, et seq.). Among the public

accommodations identified for purposes of this title was:

(7) PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION - The following private

entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this

title, if the operations of such entities affect commerce - 

...

(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping

center, or other sales or rental establishment.

42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E) 

49. Pursuant to §302, 42 U.S.C. §12182, “No individual shall be discriminated

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

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

who owns, leases, or leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation”.

50. The specific prohibitions against discrimination set forth in §302(b)(2)(a),

42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(a) are:

(I) the imposition or application of eligibility criteria

that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability

or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally

enjoying any goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or

accommodations, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary

for the provision of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,

advantages, or accommodations being offered;

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 17 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

14

(ii) a failure to make reasonable modifications in

policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are

necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges,

advantages or accommodations to individuals with disabilities,

unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications

would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services,

facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations;

(iii) a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to

ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied

services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other

individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services,

unless the entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would

fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility,

privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would

result in an undue burden;

(iv) a failure to remove architectural barriers, and

communication barriers that are structural in nature, in existing

facilities . . . where such removal is readily achievable; and 

(v) where an entity can demonstrate that the removal of

a barrier under clause (iv) is not readily achievable, a failure to

make such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or

accommodations available through alternative methods if such

methods are readily achievable. 

The acts of defendants set forth herein were a violation of plaintiffs’ rights under the ADA,

Public Law 101-336, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 28 CFR Part 36, et seq. -

Effective January 31, 1993, the standards of the ADA were also incorporated into California

Civil Code §51, making available the damage remedies incorporated into Civil Code §51 and

52(a) and 54.3.

51. The removal of the barriers complained of by plaintiffs as hereinabove alleged

was at all times after January 26, 1992 “readily achievable” as to the subject building(s) of

BELLI DELI pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12182 (b)(2)(A)(i)-(iv). On information and belief, if the

removal of all the barriers complained of herein together was not “readily achievable,” the

removal of each individual barrier complained of herein was “readily achievable.” On

information and belief, defendants’ failure to remove said barriers was likewise due to

discriminatory practices, procedures and eligibility criteria, as defined by 42 U.S.C. §12182

(b)(2)(A)(i)and (ii).

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 18 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

15

52. Per 42 U.S.C. §12181 (9), the term “readily achievable” means “easily

accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.” The statute

defines relative “expense” in part in relation to the total financial resources of the entities

involved. Plaintiffs allege that properly repairing, modifying, or altering each of the items that

plaintiffs complain of herein were and are “readily achievable” by the defendants under the

standards set forth under §301(9) of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Furthermore, if it was

not “readily achievable” for defendants to remove each of such barriers, defendants have failed to

make the required services available through alternative methods which were readily achievable. 

53. On information and belief, construction work on, and modifications of, the subject

building(s) of BELLI DELI occurred after the compliance date for the Americans with

Disabilities Act, January 26, 1992, independently triggering access requirements under Title III

of the ADA. 

54. Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §12188, et

seq., plaintiffs are entitled to the remedies and procedures set forth in §204(a) of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000(a)-3(a), as plaintiffs are being subjected to discrimination on the

basis of disability in violation of this title or have reasonable grounds for believing that plaintiffs

are about to be subjected to discrimination in violation of §302. Plaintiffs are deterred from

returning to or making use of the public facilities complained of herein so long as the premises

and defendants’ policies bar full and equal use by persons with physical disabilities. 

55. 42 U.S.C. 12188 (a)(1) states: “Nothing in this section shall require a person with

a disability to engage in a futile gesture if such person has actual notice that a person or

organization covered by this title does not intend to comply with its provisions”. Pursuant to this

section, plaintiff CRAIG YATES has not returned to defendants’ premises since on or about

September 21, 2007, but on information and belief, alleges that defendants have continued to

violate the law and deny the rights of plaintiffs and of other persons with physical disabilities to

access this public accommodation. Pursuant to 42 USC §12188(a)(2), “In cases of violations of

§302(b)(2)(A)(iv) . . . injunctive relief shall include an order to alter facilities to make such

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 19 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

16

facilities readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by

this title”. 

56. Plaintiffs seek relief pursuant to remedies set forth in §204(a) of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000(a)-3(a)), and pursuant to federal regulations adopted to implement

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, including but not limited to an order granting

injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs will seek attorneys’ fees conditioned upon being

deemed to be the prevailing party.

Wherefore, plaintiffs pray for relief and damages as hereinafter stated.

II. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DENIAL OF FULL AND EQUAL ACCESS 

IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §§54, 54.1 AND 54.3, ET SEQ.

(On Behalf of Plaintiffs CRAIG YATES and DISABILITY RIGHTS, ENFORCEMENT,

EDUCATION, SERVICES: HELPING YOU HELP OTHERS, a California public

benefit corporation, and Against Defendants WILLIAM ROGERS as TRUSTEE of

PEGGY R. VAN ALYEA 1998 TRUST UTD; DONG J. HOMER and YOUNG B.

HOMER, inclusive) 

(California Civil Code §§54, 54.1, 54.3, et seq.)

57. Plaintiffs replead and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth again herein, the

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 56 of this complaint. 

58. At all times relevant to this action, California Civil Code §54 has provided that

persons with physical disabilities are not to be discriminated against because of physical

handicap or disability. This section provides that:

(a) Individuals with disabilities . . . have the same rights as

the general public to full and free use of the streets, highways,

sidewalks, walkways, public buildings, medical facilities, including

hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices, and other public places. 

59. California Civil Code §54.1 provides that persons with disabilities shall not be

denied full and equal access to places of public accommodation or facilities:

(a)(1) Individuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full

and equal access, as other members of the general public, to

accommodations, advantages, facilities, medical facilities,

including hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices, and privileges

of all common carriers, airplanes, motor vehicles, railroad trains,

motorbuses, streetcars, boats, or any other public conveyances or

modes of transportation (whether private, public, franchised,

licensed, contracted, or otherwise provided), telephone facilities,

adoption agencies, private schools, hotels, lodging places, places of

public accommodation, amusement or resort, and other places to

which the general public is invited, subject only to the conditions

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 20 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

17

and limitations established by law, or state or federal regulation,

and applicable alike to all persons.

Civil Code §54.1(a)(1)

60. California Civil Code §54.1 further provides that a violation of the Americans

with Disabilities Act of 1990 constitutes a violation of section 54.1:

(d) A violation of the right of an individual under the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336)

also constitutes a violation of this section, and nothing in this

section shall be construed to limit the access of any person in

violation of that act.

Civil Code §54.1(d)

61. Plaintiff CRAIG YATES and the membership of plaintiff DREES are persons

within the meaning of Civil Code §54.1 whose rights have been infringed upon and violated by

the defendants, and each of them, as prescribed by §§54 and 54.1. Each specific architectural

barrier which defendants knowingly and willfully fail and refuse to remove constitutes a separate

act in violation of §§54 and 54.1. Plaintiffs have been and continue to be denied full and equal

access to defendants’ WILLIAM ROGERS as TRUSTEE of PEGGY R. VAN ALYEA 1998

TRUST UTD; DONG J. HOMER and YOUNG B. HOMER. As a legal result, plaintiffs are

entitled to seek damages pursuant to California Civil Code §54.3(a) for each day on which they

visited or have been deterred from visiting the BELLI DELI because of their knowledge and

belief that the BELLI DELI is inaccessible to persons with disabilities. California Civil Code

§54.3(a) provides:

Any person or persons, firm or corporation, who denies or

interferes with admittance to or enjoyment of the public facilities

as specified in Sections 54 and 54.1 or otherwise interferes with

the rights of an individual with a disability under Sections 54, 54.1

and 54.2 is liable for each offense for the actual damages and any

amount as may be determined by a jury, or the court sitting without

a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual

damages but in no case less than . . .one thousand dollars ($1,000)

and . . . attorney’s fees as may be determined by the court in

addition thereto, suffered by any person denied any of the rights

provided in Sections 54, 54.1 and 54.2.

Civil Code §54.3(a) 

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 21 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

18

62. On or about August 1, 2006, August 29, 2006, January 25, 2007, May 9, 2007,

June 8, 2007, June 30, 2007, July 8, 2007, July 13, 2007 and September 21, 2007, plaintiff

CRAIG YATES suffered violations of §§54 and 54.1 of the Civil Code in that plaintiff CRAIG

YATES was denied access to entrance, parking, path of travel, and restroom and other public

facilities as stated herein at the BELLI DELI and on the basis that plaintiff CRAIG YATES was a

person with physical disabilities. 

63. As a result of the denial of equal access to defendants’ facilities due to the acts

and omissions of defendants, and each of them, in owning, operating and maintaining these

subject public facilities, plaintiffs suffered violations of plaintiffs’ civil rights, including but not

limited to rights under §§54, 54.1 and 54.3, Civil Code, and plaintiff CRAIG YATES suffered

physical discomfort, bodily injury (including, but not limited to, fatigue, stress, strain and pain in

wheeling and attempting to and/or transferring up, on, down, to, over, around and through

architectural barriers), emotional distress, mental distress, mental suffering, mental anguish,

which includes shame, humiliation, embarrassment, frustration, anger, disappointment and

worry, all of which are expectedly and naturally associated with a denial of access to a person

with physical disabilities, all to plaintiff’s damages as hereinafter stated. Defendants’ actions and

omissions to act constituted discrimination against plaintiff on the sole basis that plaintiffs are

persons or an entity that represents persons with physical disabilities and unable, because of the

architectural barriers created and maintained by the defendants in violation of the subject laws, to

use the public facilities hereinabove described on a full and equal basis as other persons.

64. Plaintiffs have been damaged by defendants’, and each of their, wrongful conduct

and seeks the relief that is afforded by Civil Code §§54 and 54.1, 54.3 and 55 for violation of

plaintiffs’ rights as persons or an entity that represents persons with physical disabilities on or

about August 1, 2006, August 29, 2006, January 25, 2007, May 9, 2007, June 8, 2007, June 30,

2007, July 8, 2007, July 13, 2007 and September 21, 2007, and on a continuing basis since then,

including statutory damages, a trebling of all of actual damages, general and special damages

available pursuant to §54.3 of the Civil Code according to proof.

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 22 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

19

65. As a result of defendants’, and each of their, acts and omissions in this regard, 

plaintiffs have been required to incur legal expenses and hire attorneys in order to enforce

plaintiffs’ rights and enforce the provisions of the law protecting access for persons with physical

disabilities and prohibiting discrimination against persons with physical disabilities. Pursuant to

the provisions of §54.3 and §55 of the Civil Code, plaintiffs therefore will seek recovery in this

lawsuit for all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred if deemed the prevailing party. 

Additionally, plaintiffs’ lawsuit is intended not only to obtain compensation for damages to

plaintiffs, but also to compel the defendants to make their facilities accessible to all members of

the public with disabilities, justifying public interest attorneys’ fees, if deemed the prevailing

party, pursuant to the provisions of §1021.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 23 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

20

Wherefore, plaintiffs pray for relief and damages as hereinafter stated. 

III. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DENIAL OF ACCESSIBLE SANITARY 

FACILITIES IN VIOLATION OF HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §19955, ET. SEQ.

(On Behalf of Plaintiffs CRAIG YATES and DISABILITY RIGHTS, ENFORCEMENT,

EDUCATION, SERVICES: HELPING YOU HELP OTHERS, a California public

benefit corporation and Against Defendants WILLIAM ROGERS as TRUSTEE of

PEGGY R. VAN ALYEA 1998 TRUST UTD; DONG J. HOMER and YOUNG B.

HOMER, inclusive)

(Health & Safety Code §19955, et seq.)

66. Plaintiffs replead and incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth again herein,

the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 65 of this complaint. 

67. Health & Safety Code §19955 provides in pertinent part:

The purpose of this part is to insure that public accommodations or

facilities constructed in this state with private funds adhere to the

provisions of Chapter 7 (commencing with Sec. 4450) of Division

5 of Title 1 of the Government Code. For the purposes of this part

“public accommodation or facilities” means a building, structure,

facility, complex, or improved area which is used by the general

public and shall include auditoriums, hospitals, theaters,

restaurants, hotels, motels, stadiums, and convention centers. 

When sanitary facilities are made available for the public, clients or

employees in such accommodations or facilities, they shall be

made available for the handicapped. 

68. Health & Safety Code §19956, which appears in the same chapter as §19955,

provides in pertinent part, “accommodations constructed in this state shall conform to the

provisions of Chapter 7 (commencing with Sec. 4450) of Division 5 of Title 1 of the Government

Code . . . .” Health & Safety Code §19956 was operative July 1, 1970, and is applicable to all

public accommodations constructed or altered after that date. On information and belief,

portions of the BELLI DELI and/or of the building(s) were constructed and/or altered after July

1, 1970, and substantial portions of the BELLI DELI and/or the building(s) had alterations,

structural repairs, and/or additions made to such public accommodations after July 1, 1970,

thereby requiring said BELLI DELI and/or building to be subject to the requirements of Part 5.5,

§19955, et seq., of the Health & Safety Code upon such alteration, structural repairs or additions

per Health & Safety Code §19959. 

69. Pursuant to the authority delegated by Government Code §4450, et seq, the State

Architect promulgated regulations for the enforcement of these provisions. Effective July 1,

1982, Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code adopted the California State Architect’s

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 24 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

21

Regulations and these regulations must be complied with as to any alterations and/or

modifications of BELLI DELI and/or the building(s) occurring after that date. Construction

changes occurring prior to this date but after July 1, 1970 triggered access requirements pursuant

to the “ASA” requirements, the American Standards Association Specifications, A117.1-1961. 

On information and belief, at the time of the construction and modification of said building, all

buildings and facilities covered were required to conform to each of the standards and

specifications described in the American Standards Association Specifications and/or those

contained in Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code. 

70. Delis such as the BELLI DELI are “public accommodations or facilities” within

the meaning of Health & Safety Code §19955, et seq. 

71. As a result of the actions and failure to act of defendants, and as a result of the

failure to provide proper and legally handicapped-accessible public facilities, plaintiffs were

denied plaintiffs’ rights to full and equal access to public facilities and suffered a loss of

plaintiffs’ civil rights and plaintiffs’ rights as persons with physical disabilities to full and equal

access to public facilities.

72. Attorneys’ Fees -- As a result of defendants’ acts and omissions in this regard,

plaintiffs have been required to incur legal expenses and hire attorneys in order to enforce

plaintiffs’ civil rights and enforce provisions of the law protecting access for the persons with

physical disabilities and prohibiting discrimination against the persons with physical disabilities,

and to take such action both in plaintiffs’ own interests and in order to enforce an important right

affecting the public interest. Plaintiffs, therefore, seek in this lawsuit the recovery of all

reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred, pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure

§1021.5. Plaintiffs additionally seek attorneys’ fees pursuant to Health & Safety Code §19953

and Civil Code §§54.3 and 55 and/or in the alternative, plaintiffs will seek attorneys’ fees, costs

and litigation expenses pursuant to §204(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 200(a)-

3(a)). Plaintiffs will seek attorneys’ fees conditioned upon being deemed to be the prevailing

party. 

///

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 25 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

22

73. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief for an order compelling defendants, and each of

them, to make the subject place of public accommodation readily accessible to and usable by

persons with disabilities. 

Wherefore, plaintiffs pray for damages and relief as hereinafter stated. 

IV. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DENIAL OF ACCESS TO FULL AND 

EQUAL ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES, PRIVILEGES

AND/OR SERVICES IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §51, ET

SEQ. (THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT)

(On Behalf of Plaintiffs CRAIG YATES and DISABILITY RIGHTS, ENFORCEMENT,

EDUCATION, SERVICES: HELPING YOU HELP OTHERS, a California public

benefit corporation, and Against Defendants WILLIAM ROGERS as TRUSTEE of

PEGGY R. VAN ALYEA 1998 TRUST UTD; DONG J. HOMER and YOUNG B.

HOMER, inclusive)

(Civil Code §51, 51.5)

74. Plaintiffs replead and incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth again herein,

the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 73 of this complaint. 

75. Defendants’ actions and omissions and failure to act as a reasonable and prudent

public accommodation in identifying, removing and/or creating architectural barriers, policies,

practices and/or procedures violates §51 of the Civil Code, the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The

Unruh Act provides:

This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the

Unruh Civil Rights Act.

All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and

equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry,

national origin, or disability are entitled to the full and equal

accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in

all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

This section shall not be construed to confer any right or

privilege on a person that is conditioned or limited by law or that is

applicable alike to persons of every sex, color, race, religion,

ancestry, national origin, or disability.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any

construction, alteration, repair, structural or otherwise, or

modification of any sort whatsoever, beyond that construction,

alteration, repair, or modification that is otherwise required by

other provisions of law, to any new or existing establishment,

facility, building, improvement, or any other structure . . . nor shall

anything in this section be construed to augment, restrict, or alter in

any way the authority of the State Architect to require construction,

alteration, repair, or modifications that the State Architect

otherwise possesses pursuant to other . . . laws.

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 26 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

23

A violation of the right of any individual under the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336)

shall also constitute a violation of this section.

As the Unruh Act incorporates violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the

“intent” of the defendants in not complying with barrier removal is not an issue. Hence, the 

failure on the parts of defendants, as reasonable and prudent public accommodations, in acting or

failing to act to identify and remove barriers can be construed as a “negligent per se” act of

defendants, and each of them.

76. The acts and omissions of defendants stated herein are discriminatory in nature

and in violation of Civil Code §51.5:

No business establishment of any kind whatsoever shall

discriminate against, boycott or blacklist, refuse to buy from, sell

to, or trade with any person in this state because of the race, creed,

religion, color, national origin, sex, or disability of the person or of

the person’s partners, members, stockholders, directors, officers,

managers, superintendents, agents, employees, business associates,

suppliers, or customers.

As used in this section, “person” includes any person, firm

association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation,

limited liability company, or company.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any

construction, alteration, repair, structural or otherwise, or

modification of any sort whatsoever, beyond that construction,

alteration, repair or modification that is otherwise required by other

provisions of law, to any new or existing establishment, facility,

building, improvement, or any other structure . . . nor shall

anything in this section be construed to augment, restrict or alter in

any way the authority of the State Architect to require construction,

alteration, repair, or modifications that the State Architect

otherwise possesses pursuant to other laws.

77. Defendants’ acts and omissions as specified have denied to plaintiffs full and

equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges and services in a business establishment,

on the basis of physical disability, in violation of Civil Code §§51 and 51.5, the Unruh Civil

Rights Act. Furthermore, pursuant to the 1992 amendment to California Civil Code §51, “A

violation of the right of any individual under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public

Law 101-336) shall also constitute a violation of this section”. Plaintiffs accordingly incorporate

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 27 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

24

the entirety of their above cause of action for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act at

§45, et seq., as if repled herein.

78. As a legal result of the violation of plaintiff CRAIG YATES’ civil rights as

hereinabove described, plaintiff CRAIG YATES has suffered general damages, bodily injury

(including, but not limited to, fatigue, stress, strain and pain in wheeling and attempting to and/or

transferring up, on, down, to, over, around and through architectural barriers) physical injury,

emotional distress (all to plaintiff’s damage according to proof, and incurred reasonable

attorneys’ fees and costs). Plaintiffs CRAIG YATES and DREES are entitled to the rights and

remedies of §52(a) of the Civil Code, including trebling of actual damages (defined by §52(h) of

the Civil Code to mean “special and general damages”), as well as to reasonable attorneys’ fees

and costs, as is allowed by statute, according to proof if deemed to be the prevailing party.

PRAYER:

Plaintiffs pray that this court award damages and provide relief as follows:

I. PRAYER FOR FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DENIAL OF ACCESS BY A 

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION IN VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH

DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 (42 U.S.C. §1 2101, et seq.)

(On Behalf of Plaintiffs CRAIG YATES and DISABILITY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT,

EDUCATION, SERVICES:HELPING YOU HELP OTHERS, a California public benefit

corporation, and Against Defendants WILLIAM ROGERS as TRUSTEE of PEGGY R.

VAN ALYEA 1998 TRUST UTD; DONG J. HOMER and YOUNG B. HOMER, 

inclusive)

(42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq.)

1. For injunctive relief, compelling defendants WILLIAM ROGERS as TRUSTEE

of PEGGY R. VAN ALYEA 1998 TRUST UTD; DONG J. HOMER and YOUNG B. HOMER,

inclusive, to make the BELLI DELI, located at 1304 2nd Street, San Rafael, California, readily

accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, per 42 U.S.C §12181, et seq., and to

make reasonable modifications in policies, practice, eligibility criteria and procedures so as to

afford full access to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations

being offered. 

2. For attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit, if plaintiffs are deemed

the prevailing party; and

3. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 28 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

25

II. PRAYER FOR SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DENIAL OF FULL AND 

EQUAL ACCESS IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §§54, 54.1

AND 54.3, ET SEQ.

(On Behalf of Plaintiffs CRAIG YATES and DISABILITY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT,

EDUCATION, SERVICES:HELPING YOU HELP OTHERS, a California public benefit

corporation, and Against Defendants WILLIAM ROGERS as TRUSTEE of PEGGY R.

VAN ALYEA 1998 TRUST UTD; DONG J. HOMER and YOUNG B. HOMER,

inclusive)

(California Civil Code §§54, 54.1, 54.3, et seq.)

1. For injunctive relief, compelling defendants WILLIAM ROGERS as TRUSTEE

of PEGGY R. VAN ALYEA 1998 TRUST UTD; DONG J. HOMER and YOUNG B. HOMER,

inclusive, to make the BELLI DELI, located at 1304 2nd Street, San Rafael, California, readily

accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, per state law.

2. Statutory damages as afforded by Civil Code §54.3 for the date of incident and for

each occasion on which plaintiffs were deterred from returning to the subject public

accommodation.

3. Attorneys’ fees pursuant to Civil Code §54.3 and §55 and Code of Civil

Procedure §1021.5, if plaintiffs are deemed the prevailing party;

4. Treble damages pursuant to Civil Code §54.3;

5. For all costs of suit;

6. Prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code §3291;

7. Such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

III. PRAYER FOR SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DENIAL OF FULL AND 

EQUAL ACCESS IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §§54, 54.1

AND 54.3, ET SEQ.

(On Behalf of Plaintiff CRAIG YATES, and Against Defendants WILLIAM ROGERS as

TRUSTEE of PEGGY R. VAN ALYEA 1998 TRUST UTD; DONG J. HOMER and

YOUNG B. HOMER, inclusive),

(California Civil Code §§54, 54.1, 54.3, et seq.)

1. General and compensatory damages according to proof.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 29 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

26

IV. PRAYER FOR THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DENIAL OF ACCESSIBLE

SANITARY FACILITIES IN VIOLATION OF HEALTH & SAFETY CODE

§19955, ET. SEQ.

(On Behalf of Plaintiffs CRAIG YATES and DISABILITY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT,

EDUCATION, SERVICES:HELPING YOU HELP OTHERS, a California public benefit

corporation, and Against Defendants WILLIAM ROGERS as TRUSTEE of PEGGY R.

VAN ALYEA 1998 TRUST UTD; DONG J. HOMER and YOUNG B. HOMER,

inclusive)

(Health & Safety code §19955, et seq.)

1. For injunctive relief, compelling defendants WILLIAM ROGERS as TRUSTEE

of PEGGY R. VAN ALYEA 1998 TRUST UTD; DONG J. HOMER and YOUNG B. HOMER,

inclusive, to make the BELLI DELI, located at 1304 2nd Street, San Rafael, California, readily

accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, per state law.

2. For attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5, Civil Code §55,

and/or, alternatively, Health & Safety Code §19953, if plaintiffs are deemed the prevailing party;

3. For all costs of suit;

4. For prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code §3291;

5. Such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. 

V. PRAYER FOR FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DENIAL OF ACCESS TO 

FULL AND EQUAL ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES,

PRIVILEGES AND/OR SERVICES IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL

CODE §51, ET SEQ. (THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT)

(On Behalf of Plaintiffs CRAIG YATES and DISABILITY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT,

EDUCATION, SERVICES:HELPING YOU HELP OTHERS, a California public benefit

corporation and Against Defendants WILLIAM ROGERS as TRUSTEE of PEGGY R.

VAN ALYEA 1998 TRUST UTD; DONG J. HOMER and YOUNG B. HOMER,

inclusive)

(California Civil Code §§51, 51.5, et seq.)

1. All statutory damages as afforded by Civil Code §52(a) for the date of incident

and for each occasion on which plaintiffs were deterred from returning to the subject public

accommodation;

2. Attorneys’ fees pursuant to Civil Code §52(a), if plaintiffs are deemed the

prevailing party;

3. Treble damages pursuant to Civil Code §52(a);

4. For all costs of suit; 

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 30 of 39
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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

27

5. Prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code §3291; and 

6. Such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

VI. PRAYER FOR FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DENIAL OF ACCESS TO 

FULL AND EQUAL ACCOMMODATIONS, ADVANTAGES, FACILITIES,

PRIVILEGES AND/OR SERVICES IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL

CODE §51, ET SEQ. (THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT)

(On Behalf of Plaintiff CRAIG YATES, and Against Defendants WILLIAM ROGERS as

TRUSTEE of PEGGY R. VAN ALYEA 1998 TRUST UTD; DONG J. HOMER and

YOUNG B. HOMER, inclusive)

(California Civil Code §§51, 51.5, et seq.)

1. General and compensatory damages to plaintiff CRAIG YATES according to

proof.

Dated: October 10, 2007 THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH

A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

By: /S/ Thomas E. Frankovich 

THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH

Attorneys for Plaintiffs CRAIG YATES and DISABILITY

RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, EDUCATION,

SERVICES:HELPING YOU HELP OTHERS, a California

public benefit corporation

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury for all claims for which a jury is permitted.

Dated: October 10, 2007 THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH

A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

 

By: /S/ Thomas E. Frankovich 

THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH

Attorneys for Plaintiffs CRAIG YATES and

DISABILITY RIGHTS, ENFORCEMENT, EDUCATION,

SERVICES:HELPING YOU HELP OTHERS, a California

public benefit corporation

Case 3:07-cv-01405-WHA Document 34 Filed 10/30/07 Page 31 of 39