1

Complaint

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

Catherine Cabalo, Esq. (CA Bar No. 248198)

Peiffer Rosca Wolf Abdullah Carr & Kane

4 Embarcadero Center, 14th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: 415.766.3592

Facsimile: 415.402.0058

Email: ccabalo@prwlegal.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Grace E. Smith

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHER DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRACE E. SMITH, 

Plaintiff,

v.

MARKET ON MARKET LLC dba THE 

MARKET; SRI NINE MARKET SQUARE 

LLC; and DOES 1-10, Inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.

Civil Rights

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY 

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND 

DAMAGES

1. Violations of Title III of the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 

1990 (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.)

2. Violations of the California 

Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civil 

Code § 54 et seq.; California 

Health & Safety Code §§ 19955 et 

seq.)

3. Violations of the California Unruh 

Act (Cal. Civil Code § 51 et seq.)

COMES NOW Plaintiff GRACE E. SMITH (sometimes “Plaintiff” or “Ms. 

Smith”) on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated disabled and associated 

persons in this civil rights action, and hereby complains of defendants MARKET ON 

MARKET LLC dba THE MARKET; SRI NINE MARKET SQUARE LLC and DOES 1-

10 (together “Defendants”) as follows:

Case 4:16-cv-07410-SBA Document 1 Filed 12/30/16 Page 1 of 18
2

Complaint

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

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil rights action involving the lack of disabled access to the 

building, structure, facility, complex, property, land, development, and/or surrounding 

business complex known as “The Market,” located at or about: 1355 Market Street, San 

Francisco, California 94013 (hereinafter the “The Market”).

2. Plaintiff GRACE E. SMITH is mobility disabled and requires the use of a 

wheelchair. On or about October 30, 2015, she decided to explore The Market, a brand 

new grocery store and food court, to grab lunch.

3. The configuration of the Market denies “full and equal” access required by 

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and supplementary State civil 

rights laws. As a result, Plaintiff has been continuously denied access and/or deterred 

from visiting the Market during the two years preceding the filing of this Complaint, 

suffered a denial of her rights to due process, was embarrassed and humiliated, and 

suffered statutory and general damages. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief 

requiring provision of access under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”)

and injunctive relief for “full and equal access” and statutory damages under California 

law. Plaintiff also seeks recovery of reasonable statutory attorney fees, litigation 

expenses and costs, under federal and state law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 USC § 1331 for 

violations of the ADA, 42 USC §§ 12101 et seq. Pursuant to pendant jurisdiction, 

attendant and related causes of action arising from the same facts are also brought under 

Case 4:16-cv-07410-SBA Document 1 Filed 12/30/16 Page 2 of 18
3

Complaint

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

California law, including but not limited to violations of Health & Safety Code §§ 19953-

19959; California Civil Code §§ 51, 52, 54, 54.1, and 54.3; and Title 24 California Code 

of Regulations. 

5. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 USC § 1391(b) and is founded 

on the fact that the real property which is the subject of this action is located in this 

district and that Plaintiff’s causes of action arose in this district. 

6. This case should be assigned to the San Francisco Division of the Northern 

District of California, as the real property which is the subject of this action is located in 

this intradistrict and Plaintiff’s causes of action arose in this intradistrict.

PARTIES

7. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff GRACE E. SMITH is 

qualified as a “person with a disability,” as this term is used under California law and 

under federal laws, including but not limited to Title III of the ADA. Ms. Smith has 

cerebral palsy and requires the use of a wheelchair for mobility. She also possesses a 

disabled parking placard and/or license plate issued by the State of California, entitling 

her to park in designated accessible and van-accessible parking spaces. 

8. Defendants MARKET ON MARKET LLC dba THE MARKET; SRI NINE 

MARKET SQUARE LLC; and DOES 1-10 are the owners, operators, lessors, and lessees, 

of the businesses, properties, facilities, and/or portions thereof in retail space of the new 

Twitter building on Market, located at or about 1355 Market Street, San Francisco, 

California 94013 (previously referred to as “The Market”). The Market is a full-service 

food complex, offering prepared food, fresh produce, and groceries. Upon information 

Case 4:16-cv-07410-SBA Document 1 Filed 12/30/16 Page 3 of 18
4

Complaint

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

and belief, The Market opened in January 2015, but approximately a year ago, The 

Market shifted its focus, scaling back on groceries and instead repositioning itself as a 

Ferry Building-style food hall. On its website (www.visitthemarket.com/about-themarket), The Market describes itself as “a local hub where you can grab a quick, gourmet 

bite and plan to run into your neighbors. It’s how you turn your city into your 

community.” The Market offers many prepared food options, including a traditional 

café, creperie, sushi/oyster bar, taco bar, poke bar, tapas bar, pizzeria, juice bar, sandwich 

bar and hot bar/salad bar. Able-bodied patrons have their choice of several seating 

options to enjoy their meal at The Market. However, most of these seating areas are not 

fully accessible to wheelchair users, per state and federal laws. 

9. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or 

otherwise of defendants DOES 1-10 are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said 

defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon 

alleges, that each of the fictitiously named defendants is in some manner legally 

responsible for the events and happenings herein referred to, which caused injury and 

damages to Plaintiff as herein alleged. Plaintiff prays leave of Court to amend this 

Complaint to show such true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained.

10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on such information and belief 

alleges, that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, were the 

agents, servants, employees, and representatives of each of the other Defendants, and 

performed all acts and omissions stated herein within the scope of such agency or 

employment or representative capacity, and/or as part of a joint venture and common 

Case 4:16-cv-07410-SBA Document 1 Filed 12/30/16 Page 4 of 18
5

Complaint

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

enterprise with one or more of the other Defendants, and are responsible in some manner 

for the acts and omissions of the other Defendants in proximately causing the damages 

complained of herein. All actions alleged herein were done with the knowledge, consent 

approval and ratification of each of the Defendants herein, including their managing 

agents, owners, and representatives. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. The Market, including but not limited to its entrances/exits, wayfinding 

signage, seating, interior paths of travel, and checkout/point-of-sale counters are each a 

“public accommodation” and part of a “business establishment,” subject to the 

requirements of multiple categories of § 301(7) of the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)), of 

California Health & Safety Code §§ 19953 et seq., of California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq., 

and of California Civil Code §§ 54 et seq. On information and belief, the Market has, 

since July 1, 1970, undergone construction and/or “alterations, structural repairs, or 

additions,” subjecting the facility to disabled access requirements per Health & Safety 

Code §§ 19955-19959 et seq., and as to alterations since January 26, 1993, to the disabled 

access requirements of § 303 of the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12183). Such facilities 

constructed or altered since 1982 are also subject to “Title 24,” the California State 

Architect’s Regulations. On information and belief, construction of the Market was 

completed in 2014 and it opened its doors to the public in January 2015. However, this 

new food market lacks many required accessible features. Further, irrespective of the 

construction and alteration history, removal of many of the access barriers at the subject

premises are subject to the “readily achievable” barrier removal requirements of Title III 

Case 4:16-cv-07410-SBA Document 1 Filed 12/30/16 Page 5 of 18
6

Complaint

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

of the ADA.

12. Plaintiff has visited the Market as a paying customer multiple times in the 

last two years and encountered numerous barriers that interfered with, if not outright 

denied, her ability to use and enjoy the goods, services, privileges and accommodations 

offered at The Market.

13. On October 30, 2015, Plaintiff decided to explore The Market, wanting to 

check out the brand new food hall in the area. She approached the self-serve hot 

food/salad bar but could create and purchase food from this area only after receiving 

assistance from an employee of The Market. Plaintiff was unable to reach certain items 

from the hot food/salad bar without assistance. After purchasing her lunch, Plaintiff tried 

to find seating to eat her food, but there was no wheelchair-accessible seating in any 

section of The Market. She traversed the entire store, but all the tables were high café 

tables or counters with bar stool seating. She was forced to eat her salad on her lap. 

After finishing her lunch alone, unable to access communal tables, she had difficulty 

locating an accessible restroom, as The Market had no directional signage indicating 

where the accessible restrooms were located and the restrooms she found were locked.

Embarrassed and humiliated by her experience, she left The Market after eating her 

lunch.

14. Plaintiff alleges continuous and ongoing discrimination. She has been 

injured by being deterred from visiting the Market and incidents occurring after the filing 

of this Complaint to the time of final judgment.

15. The barriers described above in paragraphs 13 and 14 are only those that 

Case 4:16-cv-07410-SBA Document 1 Filed 12/30/16 Page 6 of 18
7

Complaint

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

Plaintiff personally encountered. She is presently unaware of other barriers which may in 

fact exist at the Market and relate to her disabilities. She will seek to amend this 

Complaint once such additional barriers are identified as it is his intention to have all

barriers which exist at the Market and relate to her disabilities removed to afford her full 

and equal access. 

16. Defendants knew, or should have known, that these elements, areas, and 

policies of The Market were inaccessible, violate state and federal law, and interfere with 

or deny access to the physically disabled. Moreover, Defendants have the financial 

resources to remove these barriers without much difficulty or expense, and make The 

Market accessible to the physically disabled. To date, however, Defendants refuse to

remove those barriers.

17. Plaintiff’s goal in this suit is a positive one: to make The (recentlyconstructed) Market available to all persons alike, regardless of their physical condition.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:

VIOLATION OF THE ADA, TITLE III 

[ 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.]

18. Plaintiff repleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth again 

herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 17 of this Complaint, and 

incorporate them herein as if separately repled.

19. In 1990 the United States Congress made findings that laws were needed to 

more fully protect “some 43,000,000 Americans [with] one or more physical or mental 

disabilities;” that “historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals 

with disabilities;” that “such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities 

Case 4:16-cv-07410-SBA Document 1 Filed 12/30/16 Page 7 of 18
8

Complaint

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

continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem;” that “the Nation’s proper goals 

regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full 

participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for such individuals;” 

and that “the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice 

denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue 

those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous . . . .” 42 U.S.C. §

12101. 

20. In passing the ADA, Congress stated as its purpose:

It is the purpose of this Act

(1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the 

elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities; 

(2) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities;

(3) to ensure that the Federal Government plays a central role in enforcing the 

standards established in this Act on behalf of individuals with disabilities; and 

(4) to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce 

the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major 

areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities. (Emphasis 

added)

42 U.S.C. § 12101(b).

21. As part of the ADA, Congress passed “Title III - Public Accommodations 

and Services Operated by Private Entities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. The Market is

among the “private entities” which are considered “public accommodations” for purposes 

of this title, which includes but is not limited to “a restaurant, bar, or other establishment 

serving food or drink,” (see 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(B)). 

22. The ADA states that “No individual shall be discriminated against on the 

basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any 

Case 4:16-cv-07410-SBA Document 1 Filed 12/30/16 Page 8 of 18
9

Complaint

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

person who owns, leases, or leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 

U.S.C. § 12182. The specific prohibitions against discrimination include, but are not 

limited to the following:

§ 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii): “Participation in Unequal Benefit. - It shall be discriminatory to 

afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of 

such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, 

with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, 

advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals.” 

§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii): “a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or 

procedures when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities...;” 

§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii): “a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no 

individual with a disability is excluded, denied service, segregated, or otherwise treated 

differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services...;”

§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv): “a failure to remove architectural barriers, and communication 

barriers that are structural in nature, in existing facilities... where such removal is readily 

achievable;” 

§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(v): “where an entity can demonstrate that the removal of a barrier 

under clause (iv) is not readily achievable, a failure to make such goods, services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations available through alternative 

methods if such methods are readily achievable.” 

The acts and omissions of Defendants set forth herein were in violation of 

Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 28 CFR 

Part 36 et seq.

23. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that The Market was designed 

and constructed (or both) after January 26, 1993 – independently triggering access 

requirements under Title III of the ADA. The ADA prohibits designing and constructing 

Case 4:16-cv-07410-SBA Document 1 Filed 12/30/16 Page 9 of 18
10

Complaint

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

facilities for first occupancy after January 26, 1993 that aren’t readily accessible to, and 

usable by, individuals with disabilities when it was structurally practicable to do so. 42 

U.S.C. § 12183(a)(1). Here, Defendants violated the ADA by designing and constructing 

(or both) The Market in a manner that made it not readily accessible to the physically 

disabled public, including Plaintiff, when it was structurally practical to do so.

24. The removal of each of the barriers complained of by Plaintiff as herein 

alleged, were at all times herein mentioned “readily achievable” under the standards §§ 

12181 and 12182 of the ADA. As noted throughout this Complaint, removal of each and 

every one of the architectural barriers complained of herein was also required under 

California law. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that The Market was modified 

after January 26, 1993. Any alterations, structural repairs or additions since January 26, 

1993 have independently triggered requirements for removal of barriers to access for 

disabled persons per § 12183 of the ADA. If removal of any physical barrier is found to 

be “not readily achievable,” Defendants still violated the ADA, per § 12182(b)(2)(A)(v),

by failing to provide all goods, services, privileges, advantages and accommodations 

through alternative methods that were “readily achievable.”

25. The ADA also requires reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or 

procedures, when necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, or accommodations 

to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such 

modifications would fundamentally alter their nature. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii). 

Here, Defendants violated the ADA by failing to make reasonable modifications in 

policies, practices, or procedures at The Market, when these modifications were 

necessary to afford (and would not fundamentally alter the nature of) these goods, 

services, facilities, and accommodations.

26. On information and belief, as of the date of Plaintiff’s encounters regarding 

events at The Market and as of the filing of this Complaint, the subject premises have 

denied and continue to deny full and equal access to Plaintiff and to other mobility 

disabled persons in other respects, which violate Plaintiff’s rights to full and equal access 

Case 4:16-cv-07410-SBA Document 1 Filed 12/30/16 Page 10 of 18
11

Complaint

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

and which discriminate against her on the basis of her disability, thus wrongfully denying 

to her the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages and accommodations, in violation of §§ 12182 and 12183 of the ADA. 42 

U.S.C. §§ 12182 and 12183.

27. Pursuant to the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12188 et seq., Plaintiff is entitled to the 

remedies and procedures set forth in § 204(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

2000(a)-3(a), as she is being subjected to discrimination based on disability in violation 

of the ADA or has reasonable grounds for believing that she is about to be subjected to 

discrimination. Pursuant to § 12188(a)(2), “Injunctive relief. In the case of violations of 

sections 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) and section 12183(a) of this title, injunctive relief shall 

include an order to alter facilities to make such facilities readily accessible to and usable 

by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by this subchapter. Where 

appropriate, injunctive relief shall also include requiring the provision of an auxiliary aid 

or service, modification of a policy, or provision of alternative methods, to the extent 

required by this subchapter.”

28. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to remedies set forth in § 204(a) of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000(a)-3(a), and pursuant to Federal Regulations adopted 

to implement the ADA. She is a qualified disabled person for purposes of § 12188(a) of 

the ADA who is being subjected to discrimination based on disability in violation of Title 

III and who has reasonable grounds for believing she will be subjected to such 

discrimination each time that she may attempt to use the subject facilities.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests additional relief as outlined below.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:

VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA DISABLED PERSONS ACT 

[Cal. Civil Code §§ 54 et seq. and 

California Health and Safety Code §§ 19955 et seq.] 

29. Plaintiff repleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth again 

herein, the factual allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 28 above, and 

Case 4:16-cv-07410-SBA Document 1 Filed 12/30/16 Page 11 of 18
12

Complaint

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

incorporate them herein by reference as if separately repled hereafter.

30. The Market is a public accommodation under the California Disabled 

Persons Act (“DPA”). Cal. Civil Code § 54.1.

31. Plaintiff and other similarly situated physically disabled persons, including 

those who require the use of a wheelchair, are unable to use public facilities on a “full 

and equal” basis unless each such facility is in compliance with the provisions of 

California Health & Safety Code §§ 19955 et seq. Plaintiff is a member of that portion of 

the public whose rights are protected by the provisions of Health & Safety Code §§ 

19955 et seq.

32. California Health & Safety Code §§ 19955 and 19955.5 were enacted “[t]o 

ensure that public accommodations or facilities constructed in this state with private 

funds adhere to the provisions of Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 4450) of Division 

5 of Title 1 of the Government Code.” On information and belief, the provisions of both 

Health and Safety Code §§ 19955 and 19955.5, apply to The Market. Title 24, California 

Code of Regulations, formerly known as the California Administrative Code, was in 

effect at the time of construction and alterations which, on information and belief, 

occurred at such public facility since January 1, 1982, thus requiring access complying 

with the specifications of Title 24 whenever each such “alteration, structural repair or 

addition” was carried out. On information and belief, Defendants and/or their 

predecessors in interest carried out new construction and/or alterations, structural repairs, 

and/or additions to such buildings and facilities during the period Title 24 has been in 

effect.

Case 4:16-cv-07410-SBA Document 1 Filed 12/30/16 Page 12 of 18
13

Complaint

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

33. As fully explained above in paragraphs 13 & 14, Ms. Smith experienced 

numerous barriers to access at The Market, which caused her major difficulty, discomfort 

and embarrassment. Ms. Smith suffered physical, mental and emotional damages, all to 

her general, statutory and treble damages, according to proof.

34. On information and belief, the access features of The Market have not been 

improved since Ms. Smith’s visit on October 30, 2015.

35. Further, on information and belief, The Market and its premises are also 

illegally inaccessible in multiple other respects. The barriers to access described in this 

Complaint are listed without prejudice to Plaintiff citing additional barriers to access after 

inspection by her access consultant, per the 9th Circuit’s standing standards under Doran 

v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2008). These barriers to access render The 

Market and its premises inaccessible to and unusable by physically disabled persons. All 

facilities must be brought into compliance with all applicable federal and state code 

requirements, according to proof. Ms. Smith prays leave to amend this Complaint to 

obtain full injunctive relief. 

36. Further, each and every violation of the ADA (as pled in the First Cause of 

Action, supra, the contents of which are repled and incorporated herein as if separately 

repled), also constitutes a separate and distinct violation of California Civil Code § 54(c), 

thus independently justifying an award of damages and injunctive relief pursuant to 

California law, including but not limited to Civil Code § 54.3.

37. Further, each and every violation of the ADA (as pled in the First Cause of 

Action, supra, the contents of which are repled and incorporated herein as if separately 

Case 4:16-cv-07410-SBA Document 1 Filed 12/30/16 Page 13 of 18
14

Complaint

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

repled), also constitutes a separate and distinct violation of California Civil Code § 

54.1(d), thus independently justifying an award of damages and injunctive relief pursuant 

to California law, including but not limited to Civil Code § 54.3.

38. Under the DPA, individuals with disabilities have the same right as “the 

general public to the full and free use of the streets, highways, sidewalks, walkways, 

public buildings, medical facilities, including hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices, 

public facilities, and other public places.” Cal. Civil Code §§ 54 and 54.1.

39. Defendants violated the DPA by their acts and omissions, as follows:

A. Failure to construct and/or alter The Market in compliance 

with state building code and state architectural requirements;

B. Failure to modify its policies and procedures as necessary to 

ensure Plaintiff full and equal access to the accommodations, advantages, 

facilities, privileges, or services at The Market;

C. Violation of the ADA, a violation of which is a violation of 

the DPA. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54(c) and 54.1(d).

40. TREBLE DAMAGES: On information and belief, Defendants have 

continued their illegal and discriminatory policies and practices despite actual knowledge 

that people with physical mobility disabilities, including Plaintiff, attempt to patronize 

The Market and encounter illegal barriers when they do so. 

41. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants knew, or in the exercise of 

reasonable diligence should have known, that their barriers and policies and practices at 

their facilities violated disabled access requirements and standards, and had a 

Case 4:16-cv-07410-SBA Document 1 Filed 12/30/16 Page 14 of 18
15

Complaint

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

discriminatory affect upon Plaintiff and upon other physically disabled persons, but 

Defendants have failed to rectify the violations, and presently continue a course of 

conduct in maintaining policy and architectural barriers that discriminate against Ms. 

Smith and similarly situated disabled persons. Plaintiff therefore prays for an award of 

treble damages to assist in enforcement of access requirements.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as outlined below.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:

VIOLATION OF UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

[Cal. Civil Code §§ 51 et seq.] 

42. Plaintiff repleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth again 

herein, the factual allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 41 above, and 

incorporates them herein by reference as if separately repled hereafter.

43. The Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code 51(b), provides that:

All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, 

and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,

disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal

accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all 

business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

44. Defendants are business establishments within the meaning of the Unruh 

Act. Defendants are the owners and operators of business establishments.

45. Defendants violated the Unruh Act by their acts and omissions, as follows:

A. Failure to construct and/or alter The Market in compliance 

with state building code and state architectural requirements;

Case 4:16-cv-07410-SBA Document 1 Filed 12/30/16 Page 15 of 18
16

Complaint

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

B. Failure to modify their policies and procedures as necessary 

to ensure Plaintiff full and equal access to its accommodations, advantages, 

facilities, privileges, or services at The Market;

C. Violation of the ADA, a violation of which is violation of the 

Unruh Act. Cal. Civil Code § 51(f).

46. Defendants’ behavior was intentional: Defendants were aware of and/or 

were made aware of their duties to refrain from establishing discriminatory policies and 

barriers preventing physically disabled persons from accessing their facilities, prior to the 

filing of this Complaint.

47. Plaintiff’s injuries are ongoing so long as Defendants do not modify their

policies and procedures and provide fully-accessible facilities for Plaintiff and other 

persons with mobility disabilities.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as outlined below.

PRAYER

1. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law to redress the wrongs suffered as 

set forth in this Complaint. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable 

injury as a result of the unlawful acts, omissions, policies, and practices of Defendants as 

alleged herein, unless Plaintiff is granted the relief she requests. Plaintiff and Defendants 

have an actual controversy and opposing legal positions as to Defendants’ violations of 

the laws of the United States and the State of California. The need for relief is critical 

because the rights at issue are paramount under the laws of the United States and the 

State of California.

Case 4:16-cv-07410-SBA Document 1 Filed 12/30/16 Page 16 of 18
17

Complaint

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

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment and the following specific relief 

against Defendants:

2. Issue a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ actions, omissions, and 

failures, including but limited to: failing to construct and modify the premises in 

compliance with the law and failing to make reasonable accommodations and reasonable 

modifications for Plaintiff and other similarly situated disabled persons violate the rights 

of Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons under 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. and the 

regulations promulgated thereunder; 29 U.S.C. § 794; California Government Code § 

11135; California Health & Safety Code §§ 19955-19959; and California Civil Code §§ 

51 et seq. and 54 et seq.

3. Issue an order enjoining Defendants, their agents, officials, employees, and 

all persons and entities acting in concert with it:

a. From continuing the unlawful acts, conditions, and practices described 

in this Complaint;

b. To modify the above-described facilities and procedures to provide full 

and equal access to persons with physical disabilities, including without 

limitation the removal of all barriers to access where “readily 

achievable”;

c. To maintain such accessible facilities and procedures once they are 

provided;

d. To train Defendant’s employees and agents in how to accommodate the 

rights and needs of physically disabled persons;

e. To implement nondiscriminating protocols, policies, and practices for 

accommodating persons with mobility disabilities.

4. Retain jurisdiction over Defendants until the Court is satisfied that 

Defendants’ unlawful policies, practices, acts and omissions, and maintenance of 

inaccessible public facilities as complained of herein no longer occur, and cannot recur;

Case 4:16-cv-07410-SBA Document 1 Filed 12/30/16 Page 17 of 18
18

Complaint

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. Award to Plaintiff all appropriate damages, including but not limited to 

statutory damages, general damages, and treble damages in an amount within the 

jurisdiction of the Court, all according to proof;

6. Award to Plaintiff all reasonable statutory attorney fees, litigation expenses, 

and costs of this proceeding as provided by law, including but not limited to “public 

interest” attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs pursuant to the provisions of 

California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. 

7. Award prejudgment interest pursuant to California Civil Code § 3291;

8. Grant such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: December 30, 2016 PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & 

KANE

s/ Catherine Cabalo

BY: CATHERINE CABALO

Attorneys for Plaintiff

GRACE E. SMITH

DEMAND FOR JURY

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury for all claims for which a jury is permitted.

Dated: December 30, 2016 PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & 

KANE

s/ Catherine Cabalo

BY: CATHERINE CABALO

Attorneys for Plaintiff

GRACE E. SMITH

Case 4:16-cv-07410-SBA Document 1 Filed 12/30/16 Page 18 of 18