Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02289/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02289-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

CARA ELNESS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANGHA AND SONS, LLC, dba 

QUALITY INN & SUITES CAMERON 

PARK; AMARJIT SINGH SANGHA aka 

“ADAM”; and DOES 1-10, 

INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-02289 WBS CKD

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT 

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Cara Elness brought this action against 

Sangha & Sons, LLC and Amarjit Singh Sangha (collectively 

“defendants”) after allegedly encountering access barriers at 

Quality Inn & Suites Cameron Park (“Quality Inn”) in June 2017. 

(First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) (Docket No. 41).) Plaintiff now moves 

for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

56. (Mot. (Docket No. 76).) 

Plaintiff is disabled and uses a cane or walker to ease 

Case 2:17-cv-02289-WBS-CKD Document 80 Filed 03/31/20 Page 1 of 5
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

her mobility. (Decl. of Cara Elness (“Elness Decl.”) ¶ 2 (Docket 

No. 76-3).) Despite her physical limitations, she tries to take

an annual trip to Lake Tahoe to view the wildflowers in Highland 

Meadow with her friend, Marjorie Tichenor. (Id. ¶ 4.) In June 

2017, plaintiff and Tichenor attempted to stay at Quality Inn 

after Tichenor was told they had accessible rooms available. 

(Id. ¶ 6.) When they arrived at the motel, plaintiff encountered

access barriers in the parking lot, an obstructed path of travel 

from the parking lot to the lobby, and further access barriers in 

the lobby. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8.) She was then told the motel did not 

have any accessible rooms available and was “shoo”-ed away by the 

motel’s manager and owner, Amarjit Singh Sangha. (Id. ¶¶ 8-10.) 

Plaintiff left immediately and was deterred from returning in 

2018 and 2019. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 14.) Plaintiff now seeks a permanent 

injunction to remove the access barriers she personally 

encountered under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 

U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and asks the court for $12,000 in 

statutory damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act

(“Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code § 51 et seq.1 (Mot. at 24.)

Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief based on the 

undisputed facts and defendants’ uncontested liability. Under 

the ADA, “injunctive relief shall include an order to alter 

1 Under California Civil Code § 52(a), “[w]hoever denies 

. . . or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to [the 

Unruh Civil Rights Act] is liable for each and every offense . . 

. in no case less than four thousand dollars.” Cal. Civ. Code § 

52(a). Plaintiff requests $4,000 for the barriers she 

encountered in 2017 and $4,000 for each time she was deterred 

from returning to Quality Inn in 2018 and 2019, for a total of 

$12,000. (Mot. at 24.) 

Case 2:17-cv-02289-WBS-CKD Document 80 Filed 03/31/20 Page 2 of 5
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

3

facilities to make such facilities readily accessible to and 

usable by individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 

12188(a)(2). Accordingly, the court will order defendants to 

remediate the barriers to access plaintiff encountered as 

requested in her motion for summary judgment.

Any violation of the ADA is a per se violation of the 

Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f). Under the Unruh Act, 

defendants are liable for the statutory minimum of $4,000 “for 

each and every offense.” Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a). Plaintiff 

requests $4,000 for the barriers she encountered in 2017, and 

defendants do not dispute that she is entitled to this amount. 

(Non-Opp. at 1 (Docket No. 77).) Accordingly, the court will 

award her $4,000 for the barriers she encountered on her visit to 

Quality Inn. 

Although defendants do not dispute that plaintiff is 

entitled to the statutory damages for the first visit, they do 

dispute plaintiff’s claim that she is entitled to an additional 

$8,000 for the two times she was allegedly deterred from 

returning to Quality Inn in 2018 and 2019. (Mot. at 24.) In 

defendants’ “Statement of Non-Opposition with One Exception” to 

plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, they argue Elness’s 

declaration is “internally inconsistent” such that it creates a 

disputed issue of material fact that should preclude the court 

from finding that plaintiff was deterred from patronizing the 

Quality Inn in 2018 and 2019. (Non-Opp. at 1.) Consequently, 

they seek to limit plaintiff’s recovery of statutory damages to 

the $4,000 for her visit. (Id. at 2.) 

Defendants submit no evidence to refute plaintiff’s 

Case 2:17-cv-02289-WBS-CKD Document 80 Filed 03/31/20 Page 3 of 5
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

4

sworn declaration that she would have stayed at the Quality Inn 

in 2018 and 2019 but for the access barriers she encountered. 

Instead, defendants rely on carefully selected excerpts of 

plaintiff’s declaration. (Id. at 2.) When he began representing 

defendants, defendants’ counsel was provided with all previously 

served discovery and was invited to conduct his own.2 (Mot., Ex. 

3 (Docket No. 76-1).) He neglected to do so. While defendants 

now oppose awarding an additional $8,000 for deterrence, they 

portions of plaintiff’s sworn declaration out of context to 

create a disputed issue of material fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(e). In light of plaintiff’s unrefuted evidence, she is 

entitled to recover $4,000 for each year she was deterred from 

returning to the property. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to 

an additional $8,000, and the court will award her $12,000 total 

in statutory damages.3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment (Docket No. 76) be, and the same thereby is, 

GRANTED, and defendants are hereby ORDERED to remediate the 

barriers to access which plaintiff encountered by: (1) bringing 

the noncompliant accessible parking space into compliance with 

the ADA; (2) removing obstructions in the path of travel from the

parking lot to the lobby; (3) removing noncompliant elements of 

2 Defendants’ previous counsel withdrew from representing 

defendants on September 25, 2019. (Docket No. 71.) Defendants 

informed the court they had retained their current counsel on 

October 24, 2019. (Docket No. 74.) 

3 Plaintiff agreed to waive any other damages to which 

she may be entitled for purposes of summary judgment. (Elness 

Decl. ¶ 15.)

Case 2:17-cv-02289-WBS-CKD Document 80 Filed 03/31/20 Page 4 of 5
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

5

the mobility accessible room (Number 111); and (4) modifying 

additional rooms to ensure the property has the minimum number of 

accessible rooms required by law. Defendants are FURTHER ORDERED 

to pay minimum statutory damages in the amount of $12,000 to 

plaintiff for violations of the Unruh Act.

The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this 

Order.

Dated: March 30, 2020

Case 2:17-cv-02289-WBS-CKD Document 80 Filed 03/31/20 Page 5 of 5