Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01001/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01001-2/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

ALEKSEY NECHITAYLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE WEDUM FAMILY LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP, a California 

partnership,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-01001-JAM-CKD

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 

OF LAW

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Aleksey Nechitaylo (“Plaintiff”) brought this 

action against Defendant The Wedum Family Limited Partnership 

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

the California Disabled Persons Act (“CDPA”), and the Unruh Act1

for barriers located in Defendant’s grocery store. At a bench 

trial on August 17, 2015, Plaintiff first presented expert 

testimony about the existence of barriers in the store and their 

relation to Plaintiff’s disability. After a morning of

testimony, the parties reached a stipulation (Doc. #88) that 

 

1 Plaintiff abandoned his claim under California Health and 

Safety Code section 19953 before trial. Amended Pretrial 

Conference Order (Doc. #57) at 8.

Case 2:13-cv-01001-JAM-CKD Document 91 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 9
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

there are barriers and that injunctive relief should issue, as 

detailed in the order below. Because the stipulation resolved 

the ADA claim and the prayer for injunctive relief, the evidence

turned to the sole remaining issue: damages under California law. 

Plaintiff himself was the only witness. Pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 52, the Court’s findings of fact and 

conclusions of law follow herein.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Defendant is a California partnership

2. Defendant’s property, Bitu Liquor and Deli (“Bitu” or 

“the store”), is located at 4901 Auburn Boulevard in Sacramento,

California.

3. The building was constructed in or before 1981.

4. Bitu is a place of public accommodation to which the 

general public is invited.

5. Bitu was constructed with private funds.

6. Bitu is half a mile from Plaintiff’s home at 4530 

Freeway Circle.

7. Plaintiff has resided at this address for more than 

five years.

8. Plaintiff is disabled in that he is unable to use one 

of his legs. 

9. For mobility, Plaintiff typically uses crutches or a 

wheelchair, and sometimes uses prosthesis. He can drive, and has 

a disability parking permit for his car.

10. During the relevant time period, there were multiple 

stores in the area of Plaintiff’s home that sold similar products 

Case 2:13-cv-01001-JAM-CKD Document 91 Filed 09/10/15 Page 2 of 9
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

to those sold at Bitu. 

11. Bitu sold Russian and Ukrainian products, such as 

certain kinds of alcohol, that were not available at the other

stores.

12. Plaintiff experienced barriers to accessibility at 

these other stores.

13. Plaintiff began shopping at Bitu in approximately 2005 

or 2006. His purchases include cigarettes, alcohol, energy 

drinks, napkins, and chips.

14. Plaintiff visited the store in 2012.

15. Plaintiff visited the store on many occasions in 2013.

16. Plaintiff visited the store on many occasions in 2014.

17. “Many occasions” is estimated to be twice a month.

18. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on May 21, 2013. 

19. Plaintiff visited Bitu and entered the store at least 

three times between January and May 2013.

20. On another occasion before May 2013, Plaintiff drove to 

the store with his son, but was deterred from entering the store 

because of the barriers.

21. In approximately May 2015, Plaintiff drove to the store 

intending to make a purchase, but he was deterred because of the 

barriers.

22. Plaintiff has encountered barriers related to his 

disability at Bitu every time he has visited the store.

23. On at least one occasion, Plaintiff complained to 

someone working at the store about the barriers, but “nobody did 

anything.”

24. Plaintiff felt insulted when he encountered the 

Case 2:13-cv-01001-JAM-CKD Document 91 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 9
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

barriers, and felt humiliated when he was deterred from entering 

the store.

III. OPINION

A. Legal Standard

A plaintiff who proves an incident of discrimination in

violation of CDPA and/or Unruh is entitled to statutory minimum 

damages of $4,000. Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a). A plaintiff may not 

double collect by alleging violations of more than one statute, 

but he is entitled to this statutory minimum for every proven 

instance of unlawful discrimination. Rodriguez v. Barrita, Inc., 

10 F. Supp. 3d 1062, 1090 n.29 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (collecting 

cases). Such discrimination occurs every time the plaintiff 

encountered physical barriers, as well as every time the barriers 

“deterred him or her on a particular occasion from attempting to 

enter a place of public accommodation.” Botosan v. Paul McNally 

Realty, 216 F.3d 827, 835 (9th Cir. 2000); see Cal. Civ. Code 

§ 55.56(b). 

However, if a plaintiff visits the same facility multiple 

times, his damages may be limited by California Civil Code 

section 55.56(h). This section directs the decision maker to

“consider the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s conduct in light 

of the plaintiff’s obligation, if any, to mitigate damages.” The 

statute itself offers no further guidance on this standard, but 

courts describe “the key inquiry regarding mitigation of damages 

[to be] whether a plaintiff has a ‘reasonable explanation for the 

repeated conduct.’” Yates v. Sweet Potato Enters., Inc., 2014 WL 

7272961, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2014) (appeal filed Jan. 26, 

Case 2:13-cv-01001-JAM-CKD Document 91 Filed 09/10/15 Page 4 of 9
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

2015) (citing Cal. Stats. 2012, ch. 383, sec. 25).

Plaintiff here argues that he must only prove mitigation for 

incidents of deterrence, not for actual visits. Plaintiff’s 

Post-Trial Brief at 2-3. The Court does not reach this issue in 

light of its findings, explained below, that Plaintiff’s visits 

and other relevant behavior were reasonable. 

B. Analysis

1. Mitigation

Defendant appears to argue that the sheer number of 

Plaintiff’s visits over the years (“almost three hundred (300)” 

before filing the complaint) make Plaintiff’s behavior 

unreasonable. See Defendant’s Post-Trial Brief at 1, 4-5. But 

the evidence at trial establishes that Plaintiff had a reasonable 

explanation for his frequent visits and attempts to visit the 

store. Specifically, Plaintiff lived half a mile from Bitu. 

Bitu and other stores nearby had products Plaintiff frequently 

bought, including cigarettes, energy drinks, and alcohol. It was

reasonable for Plaintiff to frequent Defendant’s store, 

especially where these other stores also posed accessibility 

barriers, and Defendant’s store carried at least some products 

not available at the other stores. See Yates v. Bacco, 2014 WL 

1089101, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2014) (awarding plaintiff 

full statutory damages where “[n]othing in the record suggests 

that Plaintiff engaged in inappropriate behavior to ‘stack’ his 

damages”).

This case is different from those cited by Defendant, in 

which a plaintiff repeatedly visited an establishment far from 

home without providing a reasonable explanation for why she

Case 2:13-cv-01001-JAM-CKD Document 91 Filed 09/10/15 Page 5 of 9
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

6

needed to return. See, e.g., Yates v. Auto City 76, 2014 WL 

5585263, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2014) adhered to on 

reconsideration, 2014 WL 6735397 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2014) 

(holding that sixteen visits to gas station for allegedly cheap 

gas were not reasonable where gas station was far from 

plaintiff’s home such that he had to drive a long distance and 

cross the bridge into San Francisco). It is also different 

because Plaintiff here stopped going to the store once he filed 

suit, rather than increasing the number of his visits in order to 

increase his potential damage recovery. See Ramirez v. Sam's for 

Play Cafe, 2013 WL 4428858, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013) 

(finding multiple visits to restaurant not reasonable where 

plaintiff significantly increased frequency of visits around time 

of filing complaint). Leading up the suit, Plaintiff in fact 

slowed his visits – from approximately twice a month to once a 

month. And when he returned to the store several months after 

filing suit, it was reasonable for him to think that Defendant 

may have remedied the barriers, or at least begun renovations. 

Because Plaintiff has provided a reasonable explanation for 

his multiple visits, the Court awards full statutory damages for 

each proven visit and instance of deterrence. 

2. Number of Incidents

The Court concludes that Plaintiff proved the following five 

incidents of discrimination:

i. Three visits between January and May 2013.2

 

2 The Court notes that Defendant essentially conceded – through 

the parties’ statement of undisputed facts (Doc. #49) and 

Defendant’s post-trial briefing – that Plaintiff visited the 

store many more times than the three occasions listed above. 

Case 2:13-cv-01001-JAM-CKD Document 91 Filed 09/10/15 Page 6 of 9
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

7

ii. One occasion before May 2013 when Plaintiff drove to 

the store with his son, but was deterred from entering the store 

because of the barriers.

iii. One occasion in approximately May 2015, when Plaintiff 

drove to the store but was deterred because of the barriers.

Defendant argues that the Court should not find Plaintiff’s 

evidence of the visits credible. Defendant’s Post-Trial Brief at 

1-2. The Court disagrees; even if Plaintiff did not produce a 

paper receipt for each visit, his testimony established that he 

visited at least three times during the specified period, and was 

deterred on the two occasions listed above. Plaintiff’s 

testimony was not always a model of clarity. But rather than 

impugning Plaintiff’s credibility on cross examination, 

Defendant’s questioning helped to elucidate more clearly the 

number and timing of Plaintiff’s visits to the store. Contrary 

to Defendant’s representations in its briefing, the Court found 

the testimony credible and not “evasive.” Id. at 2. 

The Court moreover did not find that Plaintiff’s testimony 

evidenced an “effort to manufacture an Americans with 

Disabilities Act case for purposes of extracting money from 

Defendant under the guise of a claim of a civil rights 

violation.” Id. If anything, Plaintiff himself appeared largely 

unprepared to testify and seemed to have little or no sense of 

what was required to prove a violation of the discrimination 

laws. The Court finds Defendant’s argument to be without merit.

 

However, Plaintiff only seeks statutory damages for three visits, 

see Plaintiff’s Post-Trial Brief at 7, so the Court will limit 

his damages for actual visits at three.

Case 2:13-cv-01001-JAM-CKD Document 91 Filed 09/10/15 Page 7 of 9
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

8

IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes as 

follows:

1. Defendant’s store contains and has contained

accessibility barriers related to Plaintiff’s disability within 

the meaning of the ADA and California law. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff is entitled, under his first cause of action, to 

injunctive relief as set forth below.

2. Plaintiff has a reasonable explanation for his 

repeated visits pursuant to California Civil Code section 

55.56(h), so he is entitled, under his second and third causes of 

action, to statutory minimum damages of $4,000 for each of three 

actual visits and two incidents of deterrence, which were proven 

at trial. 

V. ORDER

Given the above conclusions of law:

1. Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiff $20,000 in 

statutory damages.

2. Defendant is ordered to complete the following

alterations on the store within 180 days of the date of this 

order:

a. Provide an accessible route from the public 

transportation site to the building entrance;

b. Provide an accessible route of travel from the 

accessible parking space access aisle to the building entrance;

c. Remove the abrupt vertical changes along the 

accessible route from the disabled parking space access aisle to 

Case 2:13-cv-01001-JAM-CKD Document 91 Filed 09/10/15 Page 8 of 9
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

9

the building entrance;

d. Paint the access aisle perimeter boundary line in 

blue;

e. Paint the words “No Parking” in white within the 

disabled parking space access aisle;

f. Provide directional signage to the building 

entrance;

g. Replace floor tile near exit door and 

refrigeration units so that the accessible route is a stable and 

firm surface; and

h. Install signs offering assistance at refrigeration 

units.

Plaintiff is to prepare and file a written form of judgment 

consistent with the Court’s order herein, pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 58, within ten (10) days from the date of 

this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2015

Case 2:13-cv-01001-JAM-CKD Document 91 Filed 09/10/15 Page 9 of 9