Moralez v. Peet’s Operating Company, Inc., et al.

Complaint

Page 1

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

Zachary M. Best, SBN 166035

MISSION LAW FIRM, A.P.C.

332 North Second Street

San Jose, California 95112

Telephone (408) 298-2000

Facsimile (408) 298-6046

E-mail: service@mission.legal

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Francisca Moralez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCA MORALEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PEET’S OPERATING COMPANY, INC. dba 

PEET’S COFFEE & TEA; LAFAYETTE 

PLAZA CENTER, LLC;

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No.

COMPLAINT ASSERTING DENIAL OF 

RIGHT OF ACCESS UNDER THE 

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 

FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DAMAGES, 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS (ADA)

I. SUMMARY

1. This is a civil rights action by plaintiff FRANCISCA MORALEZ (“Plaintiff”) 

for discrimination at the building, structure, facility, complex, property, land, development, 

and/or surrounding business complex known as:

Peet’s Coffee & Tea

3518 Mount Diablo Boulevard

Lafayette, CA 94549

(hereafter “the Facility”)

2. Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorney fees and 

costs, against PEET’S OPERATING COMPANY, INC. dba PEET’S COFFEE & TEA; and 

LAFAYETTE PLAZA CENTER, LLC (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”),

Case 3:17-cv-00289-LB Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 1 of 10
Moralez v. Peet’s Operating Company, Inc., et al.

Complaint

Page 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

pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et

seq.) (“ADA”) and related California statutes.

II. JURISDICTION

3. This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 for ADA 

claims. 

4. Supplemental jurisdiction for claims brought under parallel California law –

arising from the same nucleus of operative facts – is predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

5. Plaintiff’s claims are authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

III. VENUE

6. All actions complained of herein take place within the jurisdiction of the United 

States District Court, Northern District of California, and venue is invoked pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c).

IV. PARTIES

7. Defendants own, operate, and/or lease the Facility, and consist of a person (or 

persons), firm, and/or corporation.

8. Plaintiff suffers from rheumatoid arthritis and is substantially limited in her

ability to walk, requiring her to use a wheelchair for mobility. Consequently, Plaintiff is 

“physically disabled,” as defined by all applicable California and United States laws, and a 

member of the public whose rights are protected by these laws.

V. FACTS

9. The Facility is open to the public, intended for non-residential use, and its 

operation affects commerce. The Facility is therefore a public accommodation as defined by 

applicable state and federal laws.

10. Plaintiff lives approximately 30 miles from the Facility and regularly travels to 

the area where the Facility is located for the purpose of banking, shopping, and doctor’s 

appointments. Plaintiff visited the Facility on or about June 28, 2016 and September 26, 2016

to buy coffee. During her visits to the Facility, Plaintiff encountered the following barriers 

(both physical and intangible) that interfered with, if not outright denied, Plaintiff’s ability to 

Case 3:17-cv-00289-LB Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 2 of 10
Moralez v. Peet’s Operating Company, Inc., et al.

Complaint

Page 3

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

use and enjoy the goods, services, privileges and accommodations offered at the Facility:

a) During both visits, the order pick-up counter was too high, and it was 

hard for Plaintiff to reach the coffees she ordered and get a tray for 

them.

b) During both visits, the condiment counter was too high and it was hard 

for Plaintiff to reach the lids and honey which were located in a raised 

display on top of the counter.

c) During her September 26, 2016 visit, Plaintiff needed to use the 

restroom while at the Facility; however, the restroom door was too 

heavy for Plaintiff to open wide enough for her to maneuver her 

wheelchair through. 

d) During her September 26, 2016 visit, although Plaintiff could not open 

the restroom door all the way, she saw that the paper towel and soap 

dispensers were too high for her to reach. Knowing that she would not 

be able to wash her hands, and since she could not open the door wide 

enough for her wheelchair to enter, she decided not to use the restroom.

e) During Plaintiff’s September 26, 2016 visit, the path of travel from the 

inside of the store to the back door which leads to the restroom was 

obstructed by stools and a trash can, making it difficult for Plaintiff to 

maneuver along the route.

f) During Plaintiff’s September 26, 2016 visit, the back door was heavy 

and difficult for Plaintiff to open. In addition, there was a trash can next 

to the door that obstructed the requiring maneuvering clearances, 

making it difficult for Plaintiff to approach the door.

g) During Plaintiff’s September 26, 2016 visit, the threshold at the back 

door was too high, causing Plaintiff to spill her coffee as she wheeled 

over it.

///

Case 3:17-cv-00289-LB Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 3 of 10
Moralez v. Peet’s Operating Company, Inc., et al.

Complaint

Page 4

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

11. The barriers identified in paragraph 10 herein are only those that Plaintiff 

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

at the Facility and relate to her disabilities. Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint once 

such additional barriers are identified as it is Plaintiff’s intention to have all barriers which 

exist at the Facility and relate to her disabilities removed to afford her full and equal access.

12. Plaintiff was, and continues to be, deterred from visiting the Facility because

Plaintiff knows that the Facility’s goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and 

accommodations were and are unavailable to Plaintiff due to Plaintiff’s physical disabilities.

Plaintiff enjoys the goods and services offered at the Facility, and will return to the Facility 

once the barriers are removed.

13. Defendants knew, or should have known, that these elements and areas of the 

Facility 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 from the Facility (without much difficulty or expense), and make the Facility

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

those barriers or seek an unreasonable hardship exemption to excuse non-compliance.

14. At all relevant times, Defendants have possessed and enjoyed sufficient control 

and authority to modify the Facility to remove impediments to wheelchair access and to 

comply with the 1991 ADA Accessibility Guidelines and/or the 2010 ADA Standards for 

Accessible Design. Defendants have not removed such impediments and have not modified the 

Facility to conform to accessibility standards. Defendants have intentionally maintained the 

Facility in its current condition and have intentionally refrained from altering the Facility so 

that it complies with the accessibility standards.

15. Plaintiff further alleges that the (continued) presence of barriers at the Facility is 

so obvious as to establish Defendants’ discriminatory intent. On information and belief, 

Plaintiff avers that evidence of this discriminatory intent includes Defendants’ refusal to adhere 

to relevant building standards; disregard for the building plans and permits issued for the 

Facility; conscientious decision to maintain the architectural layout (as it currently exists) at the 

Case 3:17-cv-00289-LB Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 4 of 10
Moralez v. Peet’s Operating Company, Inc., et al.

Complaint

Page 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

Facility; decision not to remove barriers from the Facility; and allowance that Defendants’ 

property continues to exist in its non-compliant state. Plaintiff further alleges, on information 

and belief, that the Facility is not in the midst of a remodel, and that the barriers present at the 

Facility are not isolated or temporary interruptions in access due to maintenance or repairs.

VI. FIRST CLAIM

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Denial of “Full and Equal” Enjoyment and Use

16. Plaintiff re-pleads and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 

each of the foregoing paragraphs, and incorporates them herein as if separately re-pled. 

17. Title III of the ADA holds as a “general rule” that no individual shall be 

discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment (or use) of 

goods, services, facilities, privileges, and accommodations offered by any person who owns, 

operates, or leases a place of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).

18. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff by denying Plaintiff “full and equal 

enjoyment” and use of the goods, services, facilities, privileges and accommodations of the 

Facility during each visit and each incident of deterrence.

Failure to Remove Architectural Barriers in an Existing Facility

19. The ADA specifically prohibits failing to remove architectural barriers, which 

are structural in nature, in existing facilities where such removal is readily achievable. 42 

U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).

20. When an entity can demonstrate that removal of a barrier is not readily 

achievable, a failure to make goods, services, facilities, or accommodations available through 

alternative methods is also specifically prohibited if these methods are readily achievable. Id. 

§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(v).

21. Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants can easily remove the architectural

barriers at the Facility without much difficulty or expense, and that Defendants violated the 

ADA by failing to remove those barriers, when it was readily achievable to do so. 

///

Case 3:17-cv-00289-LB Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 5 of 10
Moralez v. Peet’s Operating Company, Inc., et al.

Complaint

Page 6

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

22. In the alternative, if it was not “readily achievable” for Defendants to remove 

the Facility’s barriers, then Defendants violated the ADA by failing to make the required 

services available through alternative methods, which are readily achievable.

Failure to Design and Construct an Accessible Facility

23. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that the Facility was designed and 

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

under Title III of the ADA.

24. The ADA also prohibits designing and constructing 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).

25. Here, Defendants violated the ADA by designing and constructing (or both) the 

Facility in a manner that was not readily accessible to the physically disabled public –

including Plaintiff – when it was structurally practical to do so.1

Failure to Make an Altered Facility Accessible

26. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that the Facility was modified after 

January 26, 1993, independently triggering access requirements under the ADA.

27. The ADA also requires that facilities altered in a manner that affects (or could 

affect) its usability must be made readily accessible to individuals with disabilities to the 

maximum extent feasible. 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2). Altering an area that contains a facility’s 

primary function also requires making the paths of travel, bathrooms, telephones, and drinking 

fountains serving that area accessible to the maximum extent feasible. Id.

28. Here, Defendants altered the Facility in a manner that violated the ADA and 

was not readily accessible to the physically disabled public – including Plaintiff – to the 

maximum extent feasible.

Failure to Modify Existing Policies and Procedures

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

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

 

1 Nothing within this Complaint should be construed as an allegation that Plaintiff is bringing this action as a 

private attorney general under either state or federal statutes.

Case 3:17-cv-00289-LB Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 6 of 10
Moralez v. Peet’s Operating Company, Inc., et al.

Complaint

Page 7

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

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).

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

in policies, practices, or procedures at the Facility, when these modifications were necessary to 

afford (and would not fundamentally alter the nature of) these goods, services, facilities, or 

accommodations.

Failure to Maintain Accessible Features

31. Defendants additionally violated the ADA by failing to maintain in operable 

working condition those features of the Facility that are required to be readily accessible to and 

usable by persons with disabilities.

32. Such failure by Defendants to maintain the Facility in an accessible condition 

was not an isolated or temporary interruption in service or access due to maintenance or 

repairs.

33. Plaintiff seeks all relief available under the ADA (i.e., injunctive relief, attorney 

fees, costs, legal expense) for these aforementioned violations. 42 U.S.C. § 12205.

VII. SECOND CLAIM

Unruh Act

34. Plaintiff re-pleads and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 

each of the foregoing paragraphs, and incorporates them herein as if separately re-pled. 

35. California Civil Code § 51 states, in part, that: All persons within the 

jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, 

facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. 

36. California Civil Code § 51.5 also states, in part that: No business establishment 

of any kind whatsoever shall discriminate against any person in this state because of the 

disability of the person.

37. California Civil Code § 51(f) specifically incorporates (by reference) an 

individual’s rights under the ADA into the Unruh Act.

///

Case 3:17-cv-00289-LB Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 7 of 10
Moralez v. Peet’s Operating Company, Inc., et al.

Complaint

Page 8

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

38. Defendants’ aforementioned acts and omissions denied the physically disabled 

public – including Plaintiff – full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges 

and services in a business establishment (because of their physical disability).

39. These acts and omissions (including the ones that violate the ADA) denied, 

aided or incited a denial, or discriminated against Plaintiff by violating the Unruh Act.

40. Plaintiff was damaged by Defendants’ wrongful conduct, and seeks statutory 

minimum damages of $4,000 for each offense.

41. Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin Defendants from violating the Unruh Act (and 

ADA), and recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred under California Civil Code 

§ 52(a).

VIII. THIRD CLAIM

Denial of Full and Equal Access to Public Facilities

42. Plaintiff re-pleads and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 

each of the foregoing paragraphs, and incorporates them herein as if separately re-pled. 

43. Health and Safety Code § 19955(a) states, in part, that: California public 

accommodations or facilities (built with private funds) shall adhere to the provisions of 

Government Code § 4450.

44. Health and Safety Code § 19959 states, in part, that: Every existing (nonexempt) public accommodation constructed prior to July 1, 1970, which is altered or 

structurally repaired, is required to comply with this chapter.

45. Plaintiff alleges the Facility is a public accommodation constructed, altered, or 

repaired in a manner that violates Part 5.5 of the Health and Safety Code or Government Code 

§ 4450 (or both), and that the Facility was not exempt under Health and Safety Code § 19956.

46. Defendants’ non-compliance with these requirements at the Facility aggrieved 

(or potentially aggrieved) Plaintiff and other persons with physical disabilities. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and attorney fees pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 19953.

///

///

Case 3:17-cv-00289-LB Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 8 of 10
Moralez v. Peet’s Operating Company, Inc., et al.

Complaint

Page 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

IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants, and each of them, for:

1. Injunctive relief, preventive relief, or any other relief the Court deems proper.

2. Statutory minimum damages under section 52(a) of the California Civil Code 

according to proof.

3. Attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit.2

4. Interest at the legal rate from the date of the filing of this action.

5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

Dated: 1/20/2017 MISSION LAW FIRM, A.P.C.

/s/ Zachary M. Best

Zachary M. Best

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Francisca Moralez

 

2 This includes attorneys’ fees under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.

Case 3:17-cv-00289-LB Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 9 of 10
Moralez v. Peet’s Operating Company, Inc., et al.

Verification

VERIFICATION

 I, FRANCISCA MORALEZ, am the plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have read the 

foregoing Complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, 

except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those 

matters, I believe them to be true.

 I verify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: 1/20/2017 /s/ Francisca Moralez 

Francisca Moralez

I attest that the original signature of the person whose electronic signature is shown above is 

maintained by me, and that his concurrence in the filing of this document and attribution of his 

signature was obtained.

 /s/ Zachary M. Best 

 Zachary M. Best, Attorney for

Plaintiff, Francisca Moralez

Case 3:17-cv-00289-LB Document 1 Filed 01/20/17 Page 10 of 10