Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-00438/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-00438-3/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT DYTCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAGANA, et. al.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00438-SI 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 64

Plaintiff Albert Dytch’s motion for summary judgment is scheduled for a hearing on 

November 16, 2018. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter is 

suitable for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. 

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA,” 

42 U.S.C. § 1201, et seq.) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act,” Cal. Civ. Code 

§ 51, et seq.). Plaintiff contends that defendant Maxaco, LLC, the landlord of Flaco’s, a restaurant 

in Berkeley, has failed to remove specific barriers to plaintiff’s full and equal access from its 

public accommodation. Plaintiff asserts that the evidence in the record shows: (1) he is disabled; 

(2) defendant’s property—including the restroom and parking lot—is a restaurant and thus a place 

of public accommodation; (3) he visited the restaurant twice; (4) while at the restaurant he 

encountered accessibility barriers in the restroom and parking lot in violation of the ADA and 

Unruh Act; (5) the cost of remedying the violations is $31,000; and (6) defendant can financially 

afford the cost of removing the barriers.

Defendant opposes summary judgment and contends it has submitted evidence raising 

material questions of fact on the ADA and Unruh Act claims. The defendant has raised issues of 

Case 3:17-cv-00438-SI Document 79 Filed 11/14/18 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

material fact as to whether defendant can afford the cost of remediation, as to when the building 

was constructed, and the threshold matter of whether the restroom and parking lot are public 

accommodations within the meaning of the ADA. Although plaintiff raises some well-founded 

objections to defendant’s declaration, most go to the weight, rather than the sufficiency, of the 

evidence challenged. Therefore, summary adjudication is not appropriate.

The Court notes, however, that if/when this matter goes to trial, both sides will be required 

to present evidence, not conjecture, and will be required to lay proper foundations for any 

evidence presented.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2018

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00438-SI Document 79 Filed 11/14/18 Page 2 of 2