Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00375/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00375-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12181 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronnie George, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

PDG America Properties, L.L.C., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-0375-PHX-JAT

JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT

INJUNCTION

Pursuant to the Entry of Default entered April 6, 2009 (Doc. #7), and Plaintiff’s

Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. #8), and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that defendant PDG America Properties, L.L.C. shall modify (1)

the “Peoria Station” shopping center, located at the southwest corner of 67th Avenue and

Peoria Avenue, Peoria, Arizona, and (2) the “Park Northern” shopping center, located at the

northeast corner of 35th Avenue and Northern Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona in accordance with

this Order. The modifications shall occur by no later than 365 days from the date Plaintiff

effectuates service of a copy of this Order on Defendant, and Defendant shall remove the

following barriers to accessibility:

Peoria Station

1. In front of Suite 101, there is a column blocking the right side flare of the

curb ramp. The curb ramp is also missing detectible warnings (raised

truncated domes). Defendant shall either remove the column or relocate the

curb ramp and associated parking spaces nearby to area without column

Case 2:09-cv-00375-JAT Document 12 Filed 10/29/09 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 -

interference (curb ramp shall have detectible warnings).

2. In front of Suite 110, there is a column blocking the left side flare of the curb

ramp. The curb ramp is also missing detectible warnings (raised truncated

domes). Defendant shall either remove the column or relocate the curb ramp

and associated parking spaces nearby to area without column interference

(curb ramp shall have detectible warnings). 

3. On the east side of LA Fitness, the running slope of the four (4) parking spaces

is too steep. From south to north, the running slopes of the spaces are 3.3%,

4.4%, 2.1% and 2.1%, all in excess of the 2% maximum. Defendant shall

repave the spaces with compliant slopes.

4. The south curb ramp on the east side of LA Fitness (serving the parking spaces

in Item 3) has a level landing with a width of only 24”, less than the required

36” for an accessible route, and the landing’s right side is blocked by a

column. The 7.5% cross slope of the side flare is not an accessible route. The

curb ramp is also missing detectible warnings (raised truncated domes).

Defendant shall install signage at the wall above this curb ramp pointing to

nearest fully accessible curb ramp several parking spaces to the north (such

north curb ramp shall have detectible warnings).

5. On the west side of LA Fitness, the running slope of three (3) of the four (4)

parking spaces is too steep. From south to north, the running slopes of the

three southernmost spaces are 3.2%, 2.9% and 2.3%, all in excess of the 2%

maximum. Defendant shall repave the spaces with compliant slopes.

6. The south curb ramp on the west side of LA Fitness (serving the parking

spaces in Item 5) has a level landing with a width of only 25”, less than the

required 36” for an accessible route, and the landing’s left side is blocked by

a column. The 7.5% cross slope of the side flare is not an accessible route.

The curb ramp is also missing detectible warnings (raised truncated domes).

Defendant shall install signage at the wall above this curb ramp pointing to

nearest fully accessible curb ramp several parking spaces to the north (such

north curb ramp shall have detectible warnings).

7. The concrete walkway across the vehicular passageway between the west side

of LA Fitness and Tutor Time has a running slope of 8.4%, in excess of the

8.3% maximum for all ramps and the 5% maximum for ramps longer than six

feet without handrails. Defendant shall repair concrete walkway to provide

compliant slopes.

8. The asphalt route between the north end of Tutor Time and Building 10270

has a running slope of 9.8%, in excess of the 8.3% maximum for all ramps

and the 5% maximum for ramps longer than six feet without handrails and for

areas adjacent to curb ramps. The curb ramp is also missing detectible

warnings (raised truncated domes). Defendant shall repair asphalt route to

provide compliant slopes, and install detectible warnings on the curb ramp.

9. The curb ramp in front of Celebrity Tanning has a running slope of 11.2%, in

excess of the 8.33% maximum. The curb ramp is also missing detectible

warnings (raised truncated domes). Defendant shall demolish existing

concrete ramp and replace with new compliant concrete curb ramp with

detectible warnings.

Case 2:09-cv-00375-JAT Document 12 Filed 10/29/09 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 -

10. In front of T-Mobile, the curb ramp has a running slope of 16.4%, in excess

of the 8.33% maximum. The curb ramp is also missing detectible warnings

(raised truncated domes). Defendant shall demolish existing concrete ramp

and replace with new compliant concrete curb ramp with detectible warnings.

11. The cross slope of the sidewalk between the entrance to the Smoke Shop and

the west end of the storefront of Great Clips exceeds the 2% maximum. It

measures 2.6% on the eastern end and 5.2% on the western end. Defendant

shall demolish and remove concrete sidewalk, pour new concrete sidewalk

with cross slope less than 2%.

12. In front of the main entrance to Safeway, the curb ramp has a running slope

of 10.1%, in excess of the 8.33% maximum. The curb ramp is also missing

detectible warnings (raised truncated domes). Defendant shall demolish the

existing concrete ramp and replace with a new compliant concrete curb ramp

with detectible warnings.

13. At the west end of Safeway, the running slope of the curb ramp is 15.1%, in

excess of the 8.33% maximum. The curb ramp is also missing detectible

warnings (raised truncated domes). In addition, the sidewalk just east of the

curb ramp has a cross slope of 8.0%, in excess of the 2% maximum, and a

running slope of 9.6%, in excess of the 8.33% maximum. Defendant shall

demolish the existing concrete ramp and replace with a new compliant

concrete curb ramp with detectible warnings, demolish and remove the

concrete sidewalk, and pour a new concrete sidewalk with compliant slopes.

14. In front of Peter Piper Pizza, there are 3 curb ramps with running slopes in

excess of the 8.33% maximum. The curb ramps are also missing detectible

warnings (raised truncated domes). In addition, the “accessible” parking

spaces are not the closest spaces to the entrance. Defendant shall demolish

the existing concrete ramps and replace with new compliant concrete curb

ramps with detectible warnings, and re-paint “accessible” parking spaces to

the area directly in front of restaurant entrance. 

15. In front of Checkmate, the curb ramp has a running slope of 10.5%, in excess

of the 8.33% maximum. The curb ramp is also missing detectible warnings

(raised truncated domes). In addition, the “accessible” parking spaces are not

the closest spaces to the entrance. Defendant shall demolish the existing

concrete ramp and replace with a new compliant concrete curb ramp in front

of store entrance, with detectible warnings; re-paint “accessible” parking

spaces to the area directly in front of the store entrance.

16. In front of China Place, there is a built up curb ramp located in the access

aisle serving the “accessible” parking space. Defendant shall demolish

existing built-up concrete curb ramp and replace with a new cut-in style curb

ramp with a running slope not exceeding 8.33%, with detectible warnings

(may require re-painting accessible parking).

Park Northern

1. In front of Suite 8129-4, there is a built-up curb ramp with a running slope of

10.6% in the access aisle serving the “accessible” parking spaces, in excess of

the 2% maximum. In addition, the running slope of the south parking space

is 2.6%, in excess of the 2% maximum. Defendant shall remove built up curb

ramp, repave parking spaces to compliant slopes and install new “cut-in” style

Case 2:09-cv-00375-JAT Document 12 Filed 10/29/09 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 -

compliant curb ramp into adjacent concrete sidewalk. 

2. In front of Travel, the west parking space has a running slope of 2.8% and the

east parking space has a running slope of 2.8%, both in excess of the 2%

maximum. Defendant shall repave parking spaces to provide compliant slopes.

3. In front of Nails and Spa, there is a built-up curb ramp with a running slope

of 8.5% and a cross slope of 18.1% in the access aisle serving the “accessible”

parking space, in excess of the 2% maximum. In addition, the running slope

of the parking space is 3.7%, in excess of the 2% maximum. Defendant shall

remove built up curb ramp, repave parking space to compliant slopes and

install new “cut-in” style compliant curb ramp into adjacent concrete sidewalk.

4. In front of Eve’s Treasure, there is a built-up curb ramp with a running slope

of 5.2% and a cross slope of 16.6% in the access aisle serving the “accessible”

parking space, in excess of the 2% maximum. Defendant shall remove built

up curb ramp and install new “cut-in” style compliant curb ramp into adjacent

concrete sidewalk.

5. In front of Great Wall Buffet, there is a built-up curb ramp with a running slope

of 8.6% in the access aisle serving the “accessible” parking space, in excess

of the 2% maximum. In addition, the running slope of the parking space is

2.4%, in excess of the 2% maximum. Defendant shall remove built up curb

ramp, repave parking space to compliant slopes and install new “cut-in” style

compliant curb ramp into adjacent concrete sidewalk.

6. In front of the main entrance to Pure Fitness, the curb ramp has a running

slope of 10%, in excess of the 8.33% maximum. In addition, the access aisle

immediately in front of the curb ramp has a running slope of 5.8%, in excess

of the 2% maximum. Defendant shall demolish and remove existing curb

ramp and replace with one with compliant slope, and repave access aisle to

provide compliant slope.

7. At the south end of Pure Fitness, the south “accessible” parking space has a

running slope of 4.6% and the north “accessible” parking space has a running

slope of 2.2%, both in excess of the 2% maximum. Defendant shall repave

parking spaces to provide compliant slopes.

8. In front of Leslie’s, a built up curb ramp projects into the “accessible’ parking

space with a cross slope of 12%, in excess of the 2% maximum. Defendant

shall remove built up curb ramp and install a new “cut-in” style compliant curb

ramp into adjacent concrete sidewalk.

9. The north curb ramp at Safeway has a running slope of 10.2%, in excess of the

8.33% maximum. In addition, the curb ramp is missing detectible warnings

(“raised truncated domes”). Defendant shall demolish and remove existing

concrete ramp and install a new curb ramp with compliant slope and detectible

warnings.

10. In front of Long John Silver, there is a built-up curb ramp with a running slope

of 8.6% in the access aisle serving the “accessible” parking spaces, in excess

of the 2% maximum. Defendant shall demolish and remove built-up concrete

ramp, patch and paint asphalt, install a new cut-in “winged” ramp into concrete

sidewalk. 

Case 2:09-cv-00375-JAT Document 12 Filed 10/29/09 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant PDG America Properties, L.L.C. shall

pay Plaintiff the sum of $15,180.34 as attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing this case with prejudice, except that the

Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the terms of this Order.

DATED this 29th day of October, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00375-JAT Document 12 Filed 10/29/09 Page 5 of 5