Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04884/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04884-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
ADRU Corp.
Defendant
Judith Allen
Plaintiff
Karla Ascencio
Plaintiff
Burger King #15775
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KARLA ASCENCIO and JUDITH

ALLEN,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ADRU CORPORATION, a California

corporation doing business as Burger 

King #15775,

Defendant. /

No. C 12-04884 WHA

ORDER ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

The undersigned judge has reviewed the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Laurel Beeler (Dkt. No. 15). No objection to the report and recommendation was filed. The

order therefore ACCEPTS and ADOPTS in full the findings therein. Accordingly, judgment shall

be entered separately for plaintiff in the amount of $20,432, consisting of the following parts: 

(1) $8,000 in statutory damages; (2) $11,864 in attorney’s fees; and (3) $568 in costs. In

addition, the following permanent injunction is hereby ENTERED against defendant:

Defendant ADRU Corporation, a California corporation doing

business as Burger King franchise # 15775, must permit

service dogs to accompany people with disabilities in all areas

of the facility where the public is normally allowed to go,

unless the dog is creating a disturbance and the animal’s

handler does not take effective action to control it, or the dog is

not housebroken. When it is not obvious what service an

animal provides, staff may ask only two questions: (1) is the

dog a service animal required because of a disability; and (2)

what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff

cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical

documentation, require a special identification card or training

Case 3:12-cv-04884-WHA Document 19 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its

ability to perform the work or task.

For a district court’s contempt power to apply to this injunction, defendant must “receive

actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise.” FRCP 65(d)(2). Plaintiffs are thus

instructed to provide proper service of this order to defendant by no later than JANUARY 23,

2014. Plaintiffs shall also file a copy of the proof of service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2014. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:12-cv-04884-WHA Document 19 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 2