___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-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

RICHARD MAC BRIDE, SB# 199695

LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD A. MAC BRIDE

865 Marina Bay Parkway, Suite 43

RICHMOND, CA 94804

Phone 415-730-6289

Fax 510-439-2786

Attorney for Plaintiff Jose Daniel Castillo-Antonio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

_____________________________________

 

Jose Daniel Castillo-Antonio, 

 Plaintiff,

Vs.

A Business Enterprise, Inc., Rajinder Singh 

Dhindsa, Bhupinder Singh Dhindsa, and Does 

1 to 50 inclusive,

 

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case Number __________

CIVIL RIGHTS

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

AND DAMAGES: DENIAL OF CIVIL 

RIGHTS OF A DISABLED PERSON, IN 

VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH 

DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 AS 

AMENDED, AND VIOLATION OF 

CALIFORNIA’S CIVIL RIGHTS 

STATUTES

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

Plaintiff herein complains of defendants herein, and alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This court has jurisdiction over this matter and these defendants pursuant to 28 USC § 1331 

for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC §12101 et seq.). 

Pursuant to pendant jurisdiction, attendant and related causes of action, arising from the same

facts, action is also bought under California law, including, but not limited to, violations of 

California Government Code §4450; California Health and Safety Code §19953 et seq., and 

applicable regulations, including but not limited to California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 

§19959; and California Civil Code §§ 51, 51.5, 52(a), 52.1, 54, 54.1, and 54.3. Defendants A

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 1 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-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

Business Enterprise, Inc., Rajinder Singh Dhindsa, and Bhupinder Singh Dhindsa own and 

operate a business called “Pic N Pac Liquors” at 10012 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, 

California in this judicial district. Defendants A Business Enterprise, Inc., Rajinder Singh 

Dhindsa, and Bhupinder Singh Dhindsa own the real property on which this business is 

operated in this judicial district.

2. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 USC §1391(b) and is founded on the fact that the 

real property that is the subject of this action is located in this district, and that plaintiff’s cause 

of action arose in this district.

INTRODUCTION

3. Pic N Pac Liquors (the “Business”) is located at 10012 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, 

California. Said business is owned and operated by defendants A Business Enterprise, Inc., 

Rajinder Singh Dhindsa, and Bhupinder Singh Dhindsa. The real property is owned by A

Business Enterprise, Inc., Rajinder Singh Dhindsa, and Bhupinder Singh Dhindsa. The 

Business is a “public accommodation and business establishment” subject to California Health 

and Safety Code §19953 et seq. and California Civil Code §54 et seq. On information and 

belief, this Business has, since July 1, 1970, undergone construction and/or “alterations, 

structural repairs, or additions,” subjecting such facility to disabled access requirements per 

Health and Safety Code §19953 to 19959 et seq. Construction and alterations since July 1, 

1982 also subjected these facilities to the requirements of California’s Title 24, the State 

Building Code. Further, irrespective of alternation history, such premises are subject to the 

“readily achievable” barrier removal requirements of Title III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990.

4. Defendants A Business Enterprise, Inc., Rajinder Singh Dhindsa, and Bhupinder Singh 

Dhindsa operate the Business, an establishment for services to the public at which business 

and location said defendants failed to provide barrier-free access to said establishment as 

required under federal and California state law. Further, defendant failed to provide 

compliance with the law as follows:

a. Exterior: The primary Business entrance door is without the proper posted international 

symbol of Accessibility in violation of California Title 24 (“CBC”) §11B-216.6 and

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 2 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-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

ADAAG (Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibilities Guidelines of the United 

States Access Board) §4.30.7*(1( (Fig. 43(a), and 4.30.6). As a result, Plaintiff had 

difficulty in finding and using an accessible entrance.

b. Interior: The aisles inside the Business were too narrow and caused difficulty to move 

about, turn at the end of aisles, and shop. The aisles were less than 36 inches wide, and 

also less than 44 inches wide when serving both sides, and less than 48 inches at the 

turns, in violation of CBC 11B-403.5.1 and 11B-403.5.2, and ADAAG 4.2 and 4.3. 

This made it more difficult and laborious for plaintiff to move about and shop, as he 

had to be careful to avoid bumping into displayed products and knocking them to the 

floor. Also, he observed the employees of the Business watching him with concern as 

he moved in the narrow aisles. This made him feel embarrassed.

c. Interior: The service countertop for sales is not accessible for wheelchair occupants in 

the Business (greater than 38 inches), in violation of California Title 24 §11B-904.4.1

and AGAAG 7.2. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to access the sales area as required 

by law. This made it difficult for plaintiff to give the money and receive the products 

purchased. Other patrons could see plaintiff struggling to deal with the higher counter. 

This caused him embarrassment.

d. Exterior: The designated parking space was not properly laid out in violation of 

California Building Code §11B-208 (the paint had faded and was the wrong color), 

11B-247.1.2.5 (disabled person required to cross hazardous vehicular areas), 11B705.1.2.5 (lack of detectable warnings at hazardous vehicle areas), 11B-502.2 

(improper vehicle space dimensions for the space), 11B-502.3 (lack of correctly laid 

out access aisle, and the words “no parking” were not present), 11B-502.6.4 (surface 

identification incorrect), 11B-502.6 (signage was incomplete, including missing the 

“$250” advisement), and 11B-502.4 (the ground surface was not level). Also, the 

wheelchair symbol was extremely faded, there was no blue border around the space or 

the access aisle, This caused plaintiff difficulties in finding a safe place to park, safely 

exit his vehicle, and reach the service area and entrance safely due to cross traffic 

through the transit area and cars parking in a position to block the transit zone from 

parking space to front door. These conditions also violated the Americans With 

Disabilities Act (“ADA”), United States Access Board ADA Accessibility Guidelines 

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 3 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-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

§4.6.3 (the improper parking space dimensions) and §4.6.6 (the lack of passenger 

loading zones), and §4.1.2(1), 4.3.2(1), and 4.14.1 (lack of an accessible route from 

parking space to entrance to facility and entrance to restroom). This made it difficult to 

find and use a safe parking space. The parking area was dangerous for plaintiff as there 

was no clearly designated space, and other traffic was not on notice that a disabled 

person in a wheelchair was transiting the area. This caused plaintiff legitimate concern 

for his own safety and the safety of his six-year-old daughter, who was with him, as 

they got out of their vehicle and entered the store. Because of the lack of a proper 

access aisles, plaintiff was concerned that another vehicle could pull in and try to park 

there without realizing that a disabled person was in the process of entering or exiting 

his vehicle.

5. The above barriers interfered with Plaintiff’s access to the facilities at the Business, and 

continue to deter plaintiff from visiting said facilities, and as a legal result, plaintiff has 

suffered and suffers violations of his civil rights to full and equal enjoyment of goods, 

services, facilities and privileges, and has suffered and will suffer embarrassment and 

humiliation. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant to this complaint is, a “physically handicapped person,” a 

“physically disabled person,” and a “person with a disability” as those terms are used under 

applicable California law and under applicable federal law, including, but not limited to, Title 

III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. (The terms “physically handicapped 

person,” a “physically disabled person,” and a “person with a disability” will be used 

interchangeably throughout this complaint.) Plaintiff is severely limited in the use of his legs.

7. Defendants A Business Enterprise, Inc., Rajinder Singh Dhindsa, and Bhupinder Singh 

Dhindsa at all times relevant herein, were and are the owners, operators, lessors, and/or 

lessees, franchisors and/or franchisees, of public facilities at the Business, known as Pic N Pac 

Liquors, located at 10012 San Pablo Ave., El Cerrito, California, subject to California state 

law requiring full and equal access to public facilities pursuant to California Health and Safety 

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 4 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-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

Code §19953 et seq., California Civil Code §§ 51, 51.5, 52(a), 52.1, 54, 54.1, and 54.3, and 

subject to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and to all the other legal 

requirements referred to in this complaint. Plaintiff does not know the relative responsibilities 

of the defendants in the operation of the Business facilities complained of herein, and alleges a 

joint venture and common enterprise by all such defendants.

8. Defendants A Business Enterprise, Inc., Rajinder Singh Dhindsa, and Bhupinder Singh 

Dhindsa, at all times relevant herein were and are the owners, operators, possessors, builders 

and keepers of the Business called Pic N Pac Liquors in the city of El Cerrito, California. 

Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the defendants herein is the agent, employee, or 

representative of each of the other defendants, and performed acts and omissions as stated 

herein within the scope of such agency or employment or representative capacity and is 

responsible in some manner for the acts and omissions of the other defendants in legally 

causing the damages complained of herein, and have approved or ratified each of the acts or 

omissions of each other defendant, as herein described.

9. Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities of defendants Does 1 to 50, their 

business capacities, their ownership connection to the property and the business, nor their 

relative responsibilities or relationships among one another in causing the access violations 

herein complained of, and alleges a joint venture and common enterprise among all 

defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the defendants herein is the agent, 

ostensible agent, master, servant, employer, employee, representative, franchiser, franchisee, 

joint venturer, partner, and associate, or such similar capacity, of each of the other defendants, 

and was at all times acting and performing, or failing to act or perform, with the authorization, 

consent, permission or ratification of each of the other defendants, and is responsible in some 

manner for the acts and omissions of the other defendants in legally causing the violations and 

damages complained of herein, and have approved or ratified each of the acts or omissions of 

each other defendant, as herein described. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint 

when the true names, capacities, connections and responsibilities of defendants are

ascertained.

10. Plaintiff is informed and believes that all named defendants, conspired to commit the acts 

described herein, or alternatively aided and abetted one another in the performance of the 

wrongful acts hereinafter complained of.

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 5 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-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

11. Defendant is the owners of the property and operators of the Business called Pic N Pac 

Liquors located in the city of El Cerrito, California. This business, including, but not limited 

to, access aisles and access routes, is or forms a part of a “public accommodation or facility”

subject to the requirements of California Health & Safety Code §19953, et seq., and of 

California Civil Code §§51, 52(a), 54, 54.1, et seq. On information and belief, this business, or 

portions of it, was constructed or altered after 1990, and after January 26, 1993, which fact has 

subjected the business to handicapped access requirements per California Code of Regulations 

Title 24 (the State Building Code).

12. On or about November 23, 2016 and December 22, 2016 (the “Visit Dates”), Plaintiff visited 

the Business for the purpose of buying food and drink. Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s 

access to the Business as set forth herein. Plaintiff mentioned to the employees that barriers 

existed, and so he had a reasonable expectation that barriers would be removed, but this had 

not happened by his second visit. Plaintiff was deterred from visiting a third time on January 

26, 2017, due to these barriers that he reasonably believed had not been removed, based on his 

prior experiences, and therefore he claims damages for being deterred from visiting on that 

date.

13. Said acts and omissions denied Plaintiff legal handicapped access to the Business and its 

facilities as required under state and federal law.

14. Plaintiff’s home in San Pablo, California is approximately six miles from the Business located 

in the city of El Cerrito. Plaintiff travels regularly to and through said city on business and 

pleasure trips. Plaintiff plans to return to the Business when this public accommodation is 

made accessible. The Business is in the heart of the commercial district of El Cerrito on a main 

thoroughfare.

15. Plaintiff himself encountered the architectural barriers described herein, and/or is informed 

and believes that the architectural barriers described herein violate the California Code of 

Regulations and the Americans with Disabilities Act Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities 

(“ADAAG”) issued by the Department of Justice, and that they existed and continue to exist, 

and thereby deny Plaintiff and others similarly situated full and equal access to the Business 

facilities as set forth herein.

16. Defendants, and each of them, by these barriers, discriminated against Plaintiff, on the basis of 

his physical disability, and interfered with his access to the Business and its facilities, in 

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 6 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-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

violation of California law, including but not limited to §§51, 51.5, 54, 54.1, and in violation 

of Title III, §302, the “Prohibition against Discrimination” provision, and §503, the 

“Prohibition against Retaliation and Coercion” provision of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990.

17. As a result of the actions and failure to act of defendants, and each of them, and as a result of 

the failure to provide proper and accessible entryways, and accessible accommodations for a 

store, Plaintiff suffered and will suffer the loss of his civil rights to full and equal access to 

public facilities, and further has suffered in the past and will suffer in the future emotional 

distress, mental distress, mental suffering, mental anguish, which includes shame, humiliation, 

embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment and worry, expectedly and naturally associated 

with a person with a disability being denied access to a public accommodation, all to his 

damages as prayed hereinafter in an amount within the jurisdiction of this court.

I. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH 

DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 (42 USC 12101 et seq.)

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

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 17 above and incorporates them herein as if separately 

pled.

19. Pursuant to law, in 1990 the United States congress made findings per 42 USC 12101 

regarding persons with physical disabilities, finding that laws were needed to more fully

protect [at that time] 43 million 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 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 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.

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 7 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-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

20. Congress stated as its purpose in passing the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 

USC 12102):

a. 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; (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; (4) to invoke the sweep of Congressional 

authority, including the power to enforce the 14th amendment and to regulate 

commerce, in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day to day by 

people with disabilities. 

21. As part of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Congress approved Title III – Public 

Accommodations and Services Operated by Private Entities (42 USC 12181, et seq.) Among 

the public accommodations identified under this title were “... a bakery, grocery store, 

clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment.”

22. Pursuant to 42 USC 12182, 

a. “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 by any person who owns, leases, (or leases to), or operates a place of 

public accommodation.”

23. Among the general prohibitions against discrimination were included in 42 USC 

12182(b)(1)(A)(i):

a. Denial of Participation. It shall be discriminatory to subject an individual on the basis 

of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through 

contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial of the opportunity of the 

individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity.

24. Among the general prohibitions against discrimination were included in 42 USC 

12182(b)(1)(E):

a. Association. It shall be discriminatory to exclude or otherwise deny equal goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations, or other opportunities to 

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 8 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-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

an individual or entity because of the known disability of an individual with whom the 

individual or entity is known to have a relationship or association. 

25. The acts of Defendants set forth herein were a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA, 

and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 36 et seq.

26. Among the general prohibits against discrimination were included in 42 USC 

12182(b)(2)(A)(i) and (ii): 

a. Discrimination. For purposes of subsection (a), discrimination includes:

i. the imposition or application of eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to 

screen out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with

disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any goods, services, facilities,

privileges, advantages, or accommodations, unless such criteria can be shown

to be necessary for the provision of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,

advantages, or accommodations being offered;

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, 

unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would 

fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages, or accommodations.

27. Plaintiff alleges that the facilities, policies, practices and procedure for entry to the Business 

facility by persons with disabilities and their companions as established and set up by the 

Defendants can be simply modified to eliminate disparate and discriminatory treatment of 

persons with disabilities by properly constructing barrier-free handicapped access so as to 

provide safe, full and equal enjoyment of the Business facilities as is enjoyed by other, nondisabled, people.

28. The specific prohibition against retaliation and coercion is included in the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 §503(b) and the Remedies and Procedures in §503(c):

a. Section 503(b) Interference, Coercion, or Intimidation. - It shall be unlawful to coerce, 

intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or 

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 9 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-10- 

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

on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having 

aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right 

granted or protected by this Act.

b. Section 503(c) Remedies and Procedure. - The remedies and procedures available 

under sections 107, 203, and 308 of this Act shall be available to aggrieved persons for 

violations of subsections (a) and (b), with respect to Title I, Title II and Title Ill, 

respectively.

29. Among the specific prohibitions against discrimination were included, in 42 USC

§12182(b)(2)(a)(iv), "A failure to remove architectural barriers, and communications barriers 

that are structural in nature, in existing facilities ... where such removal is 3dily achievable and 

(v) "where and 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 such methods are readily achievable." The acts of 

Defendants set forth herein violated Plaintiffs rights under the "ADA," 42 USC 12181 et seq., 

and the regulations promulgated thereunder, 28 CFA Part 36, et seq.

30. The removal of the barriers complained of by Plaintiff as hereinabove alleged were at all times 

after 1990 "readily achievable.” On information and belief, if the removal of all the barriers 

complained of here together were not removable, the removal of each individual barrier 

complained of herein was "readily achievable."

31. Per 42 USC §12181(9), “The term ‘readily-achievable’ means easily accomplishable and able 

to be carried out. The statute and attendant regulations define relative ‘expense’ in relation to 

the total financial resources of the entities involved, including any ‘parent’ companies. 

Plaintiff alleges that properly repairing each of the items that Plaintiff complains of herein is 

readily achievable, including, but not limited to, correcting and repairing the items set forth in 

the Paragraphs above. The changes needed to remove barriers to access for the disabled were 

and are readily achievable by the defendants under standards set forth under 42 USC §I2181 of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. (Further, if it were not "readily achievable" for 

defendants to remove all such barriers, defendants have failed to make the required services 

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 10 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-11- 

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

available through alternative methods, although such methods are achievable as required by 42 

USC §12181(b)(2)(a)(iv)(, v).)

32. Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, §308 (42 USC §12188 et seq.), 

Plaintiff is entitled to the remedies and procedures set forth in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

§204(a), (42 USC §2000a-3(a)), as Plaintiff is being subjected to discrimination on the basis of 

disability in violation of this title andlor Plaintiff has reasonable grounds for believing that he 

is about to be subjected to discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 

1990, §302. Plaintiff cannot return to or make use of the subject Business’ public facilities 

complained of herein for the purpose of entry and provision of goods and service so long as 

Defendants continue to apply eligibility criteria, policies, practices that screen out and refuse 

to allow entry and service to persons with disabilities such as Plaintiff's.

33. Each of Defendants’ acts and omissions of failing to provide barrier-free handicapped access 

for Plaintiff, were tantamount to interference, intimidation, and coercion pursuant to the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 §503(b) (now 42 USC §12203): “It shall be unlawful 

to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, 

or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or 

enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this Act.”

34. Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 §308(a)(1) (now 42 USC §12188), 

“Nothing in this section shall require a person with a disability to engage in a futile gesture if 

such person has actual notice that a person or organization covered by this title does not intend 

to comply with its provisions." Pursuant to this last section, Plaintiff, on information and 

belief, alleges that defendants have continued to violate the law and deny the rights of Plaintiff 

and other disabled persons to access this public accommodation for the purpose of dining. 

Therefore, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief pursuant to §308(a)(2) “...Where appropriate, 

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

modifications of a policy, or provision of alternative methods, to the extent required by this 

title.”

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 11 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-12- 

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

35. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to remedies set forth in §204(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

(42 USC §2000a-3(a)), and pursuant to federal regulations adopted to implement the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, including, but not limited to, an order granting 

injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. Such attorneys' fees, “including litigation expenses and 

costs,” are further specifically provided for by §505 of Title Ill.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for damages as hereinafter stated.

II.SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF STATUTORY PROTECTIONS FOR 

PERSONS WITH PHYSICAL DISABILITIES (California Health and Safety Code 

§19955 et seq.)

36. Plaintiff repleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth again herein, the 

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 35 above and incorporates them herein as if separately 

pled.

37. California Health & Safety Code §19955 provides in pertinent part: “The purpose of this part 

is to insure that public accommodations or facilities constructed in this state with private funds 

adhere to the provisions of Chapter 7 (commencing with Sec. 4450) of Division 5 of Tile 1 of 

the Government Code. For the purposes of this part "public accommodation or facilities" 

means a building, structure, facility, complex, or improved area which is used by the general 

public, and shall include auditoriums, hospitals, theaters, hotels, motels, stadiums, and 

convention centers. When sanitary facilities are made available for the public, clients or 

employees in such accommodations or facilities, they shall be made available for the 

handicapped.

38. California Health & Safety Code §19956, which appears in the same chapter as §19955, 

provides in pertinent part, "accommodations constructed in this state shall conform to the 

provisions of Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 4450) of Division 5 of Title 1 of the 

Government Code.. .” California Health and Safety Code §19956 was operative July 1, 1970, 

and is applicable to all public accommodations constructed or altered after that date. On 

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 12 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-13- 

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

information and belief, portions of the subject Business building and facilities were 

constructed and/or altered after July 1, 1970, and substantial portions of said building and 

facilities had alterations, structural repairs, and/or additions made to such public 

accommodation after July 1, 1970, thereby requiring said public accommodations and/or 

buildings to be subject to the requirements of Part 5.5, California Health Safety Code §19955, 

et seq., upon such alteration, structural repairs or additions per California Health and Safety 

Code §19955.

39. Pursuant to authority delegated by the California Government Code, the State Architect 

promulgated regulations for the enforcement of these Code provisions. Effective January 1, 

1988, Title 24 of the California Administrative Code adopted the California State Architect’s 

Regulations, and these regulations must be complied with as to any alterations and/or 

modifications of the Business’ facilities after that date. Construction changes occurring prior 

to this date but after July 1, 1970, triggered access requirements pursuant to the "ASA" 

requirements, the American Standards Association Specifications, A117.1 -1961. On 

information and belief, at the time of the construction modification and of the Business’ 

building and facilities, all buildings and facilities covered were required to conform to each of 

the standards and specifications described in the American Standards Association 

Specifications and/or those contained in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code (now 

known as Title 24, California Code of Regulations.)

40. Public facilities such as the subject Business are public accommodations or facilities within 

the meaning of California Health and Safety Code §19955.

41. It is difficult or impossible for persons with physical disabilities who use wheelchairs, canes, 

walkers and service animals to travel about in public to use a store with the defects set forth 

above as required by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the Americans with 

Disabilities Act Access Guidelines (ADAAG). Thus, when public accommodations fail to 

provide handicap accessible public facilities, persons with disabilities are unable to enter and 

use said facilities, and are denied full and equal access to and use of that facility that is

enjoyed by other members of the general public.

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 13 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-14- 

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

42. Plaintiff, and other similarly situated persons with physical disabilities whose physical 

conditions require the use of wheelchairs, canes, walkers and service animals, are unable to 

use public facilities on a “full and equal” basis unless each such facility is in compliance with 

the provisions of the 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 California Health & 

Safety Code §19955, et seq.

43. The California Health and Safety Code was enacted to “ensure that public accommodations 

and facilities constructed in this state with private funds adhere to the provisions of Chapter 7 

(commencing with §4450) of Division 5 of Title 1 of the Government Code.” Such “public 

accommodations” are defined to include stores like this one.

44. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that as of the date of filing this complaint, 

Defendants have not made accessible the facilities at the Business as set forth above.

45. Plaintiff, is informed and believes, and therefore alleges, that Defendants, and each of them, 

caused the subject buildings and facilities constituting the Business to be constructed, altered 

and maintained in such a manner that persons with physical disabilities were denied full and 

equal access to, within and throughout said buildings and were denied full and equal use of 

said public facilities, and despite knowledge and actual and constructive notice to such 

Defendants that the configuration of the store, and/or buildings was in violation of the civil 

rights of persons with physical disabilities, such as Plaintiff. Such construction, modification, 

ownership, operation, maintenance and practices of such public facilities are in violation of 

law as stated in Part 5.5, California Health & Safety Code §19955, et seq., and elsewhere in 

the laws of California.

46. On information and belief, the subject building constituting the public facilities of the Business 

have denied full and equal access to Plaintiff and other persons with physical disabilities in 

other respects due to non-compliance with requirements of Title 24 of the California Code of 

Regulations and the California Health & Safety Code §19955, el seq.

47. The basis of Plaintiff's aforementioned information and belief is the various means upon which 

Defendants must have acquired such knowledge, including, but not limited to, this lawsuit, 

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 14 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-15- 

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

other access lawsuits, communications with operators of other stores, and other property 

owners regarding denial access, communications with Plaintiff and other persons with 

disabilities, communications with other patrons who regularly visit there, communications 

with owners of other businesses, notices and advisories they obtained from governmental 

agencies through the mails, at seminars, posted bulletins, television, radio, public service 

announcements, or upon modification, improvement, alteration or substantial repair of the 

subject premises and other properties owned by these Defendants, newspaper articles and trade 

publications regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and other access law, and 

other similar information. The scope and means of the knowledge of each defendant is within 

each defendant’s exclusive control and cannot be ascertained except through discovery.

48. As a result of Defendants' acts and omissions in this regard, Plaintiff has been required to incur 

legal expenses and hire attorneys in order to enforce his civil rights and enforce provisions of 

the law protecting access for persons with physical disabilities and prohibiting discrimination 

against persons with physical disabilities, and to take such action both in his own interests and 

in order to enforce an important right affecting the public interest. Plaintiff, therefore, seeks 

damages in this lawsuit for recovery of all reasonable attorneys' fees incurred, pursuant to the 

provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure §l021.5. Plaintiff additionally seeks 

attorneys' fees pursuant to California Health & Safety Code §I9953 and California Civil Code 

§§54.3.

49. Defendants, and each of them, at times prior to and including the Visit Dates, and continuing 

to the present time, knew that persons with physical disabilities were denied their rights of 

equal access to all portions of this public facility. Despite such knowledge, Defendants failed 

and refused to take steps to comply with the applicable handicapped access statutes; and 

despite knowledge of the resulting problems and denial of civil rights thereby suffered by 

Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons with disabilities, including the specific notices 

referred to in this Complaint. Defendants have failed and continue to fail to take action to 

grant full and equal access to persons with physical disabilities in the respects complained of 

hereinabove. Defendants and each of them have carried out a course of conduct of refusing to 

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 15 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-16- 

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

respond to, or correct complaints about, denial of handicap access. Such actions and 

continuing course of conduct by Defendants, evidence despicable conduct in conscious 

disregard for the rights or safety of Plaintiff and of other similarly situated persons, justifying 

an award treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code §54.3.

50. Defendants' actions have also been oppressive to persons with physical disabilities and to other 

members of the public, and have evidenced actual or implied malicious intent towards those 

members of the public, such as Plaintiff and other persons with physical disabilities who have 

been denied the proper access they are entitled to by law. Further, Defendants’ refusals on a 

day-to-day basis to correct these problems evidences despicable conduct in conscious 

disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and other members of the public with physical disabilities.

51. Plaintiff prays for an award of treble damages against Defendants, and each of them, pursuant 

to California Civil Code §54.3, in an amount sufficient to make an example of Defendants and 

to discourage owners, operators, franchisers and franchisees of other public facilities from 

willful disregard of the rights of persons with physical disabilities.

52. As a result of the actions and failure of Defendants, and each of them, and as a result of the 

failure to provide proper accessible public facilities, Plaintiff was denied his civil rights, 

including his right to full and equal access to public facilities, was embarrassed and 

humiliated, suffered psychological and mental injuries and emotional distress, mental distress, 

mental suffering, mental anguish, which includes shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, 

chagrin, disappointment and worry, naturally associated with a person with a physical 

disability being denied access to a public accommodation.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for damages as hereinafter stated.

III. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S CIVIL RIGHTS 

ACTS (California Civil Code §§54, 54.1 and 54.3)

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 16 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-17- 

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

53. Plaintiff repleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth again herein, the 

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 52 above and incorporates them herein as if separately 

pled.

54. The public facilities above-described constitute public facilities and public accommodations 

within the meaning of California Health and Safety Code §19955 et seq. and are facilities to 

which members of the public are invited. The aforementioned acts and omissions of 

defendants, and each of them, constitute a denial of equal access to and use and enjoyment of 

these facilities by persons with disabilities, including Plaintiff. Said acts and omissions are 

also in violation of the provisions of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

55. The rights of Plaintiff, the entitlement of Plaintiff to full and equal access, and the denial by 

defendants of such rights and entitlements are set forth in California Civil Code §§54, 54.1 and 

54.3, to wit:

a. Individuals with disabilities shall have the same right as the ...general public to full and 

free use of the streets, highways, sidewalks, walkways, public buildings, public 

facilities, and other public places. (California Civil Code §54(a).)

b. Individuals with disabilities shall be entitled to full and equal access, as other members 

of the general public, to accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of all 

common carriers, airplanes, motor vehicles, railroad trains, motor buses, streetcars, 

boats, or any other public conveyances or modes of transportation (whether private, 

public, franchised, licensed, contracted, or otherwise provided), telephone facilities, 

adoption agencies, private schools, hotels, lodging places, places of public 

accommodation, amusement or resort, and other places to which the general public is 

invited, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, or state or 

federal regulation, and applicable alike to all persons. (California Civil Code §54.1(a).)

56. On or about the Visit Dates, Plaintiff suffered violations of California Civil Code §§54 and 

54.1 in that he was denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities and 

privileges of the Business as set forth in herein above. Plaintiff was also denied full and equal 

access to other particulars, including, but not limited to, those described herein above. Plaintiff 

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 17 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-18- 

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

was also denied use of facilities that he was entitled to under Title Ill of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990.

57. As a result of the denial of full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities and 

privileges of Defendants’ Business due to the acts and omissions of Defendants, and each of 

them, in owning, operating and maintaining this subject Business as a public facility, Plaintiff 

has suffered a violation of his civil rights, including, but not limited to, rights under California 

Civil Code §§54, 54.1, and 54.3, and has suffered and will suffer an injury-in-fact in the form 

of emotional distress, mental distress, mental suffering, mental anguish, which includes shame, 

humiliation, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment and worry, expectedly and 

naturally associated with a disabled person's denial of full and equal enjoyment of goods, 

services, and privileges, all to his damages as prayed hereinafter in an amount within the 

jurisdiction of this court. Defendants' actions and omissions to act constituted discrimination 

against Plaintiff on the sole basis that Plaintiff is disabled.

58. Plaintiff seeks damages for the violation of his rights as a disabled person that occurred on or 

about the Visit Dates, according to proof, pursuant to California Civil Code §54.3, including a 

trebling of all statutory and actual damages, both general and special, available pursuant to 

California Civil Code §54.3(a).

59. As a result of Defendants' acts and omissions in this regard, Plaintiff has been required to incur 

legal expenses and hire attorneys in order to enforce his rights and enforce provisions of the 

law protecting the full and equal enjoyment of goods,services, facilities, privileges of public 

facilities by the disabled, and those individuals associated with or accompanied by a person 

with disabilities, and prohibiting discrimination against the disabled. Plaintiff, therefore, seeks 

recovery in this lawsuit for all reasonable attorneys' fees incurred pursuant to the provisions of 

California Civil Code §51, 52, and 54. (California Civil Code §55 is specifically not invoked.) 

Additionally, Plaintiff's lawsuit is intended not only to obtain compensation for damages to 

Plaintiff, but also to compel the Defendants to make their goods, services, facilities and 

privileges available and accessible to all members of the public with physical disabilities, 

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 18 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-19- 

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

justifying public interest attorneys' fees pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil 

Procedure §1021.5.

60. The acts and omissions of Defendants in failing to provide the required accessible facilities 

subsequent to the enactment date and compliance date of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

of 1990 and refusal to make remedial alterations to their facilities and other elements as 

hereinabove stated, after being notified by patrons before and after the time of Plaintiff’s visit 

and injuries, on or about the Visit Dates, and all times prior thereto, with the knowledge that 

persons with disabilities would enter Defendants’ premises, the reason given therefor, was an 

established policy, practice, and procedure of refusing and denying entry and/or use of 

facilities, thereby denying services to a person with disabilities and the companions thereor, 

evidence malice and oppression toward Plaintiff and other disabled persons.

61. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief pursuant to California Civil Code §54 and Health and Safety 

Code §19953 et seq. to require Defendants to comply with federal and state access regulations.

62. Defendants have failed to establish a non-discriminatory criteria, policy, practice and 

procedure for entry into said Business as hereinabove described.

63. As a result of defendants’ continuing failure to provide for the full and equal enjoyment of 

goods, services, facilities and privileges of said Business as hereinabove described, Plaintiff 

has continually been denied his full and equal enjoyment of the subject store facilities at the 

Business, as it would be a “futile gesture to attempt to patronize” said Business with the 

discriminatory policy in place as hereinabove described.

64. The acts and omissions of Defendants as complained of herein in failing to provide the 

required accessible facilities subsequent to the enactment date and compliance date of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and refusal to make remedial modifications and 

alterations to the architectural barriers as stated herein and in failing to establish practices, 

policies and procedures to allow safe access by persons who are disabled are continuing on a 

day-to-day basis to have the effect of wrongfully and willfully excluding Plaintiff and other 

members of the public who are disabled from full and equal enjoyment of the subject Business 

as hereinabove described. Such acts and omissions are the continuing cause of humiliation and 

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 19 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-20- 

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

mental and emotional suffering of Plaintiff in that these actions continue to treat Plaintiff as an 

inferior and second class citizen and serve to discriminate against him on the sole basis that he 

is disabled. Plaintiff is unable so long as such acts and omissions of defendants continue, to 

achieve full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services of said Business as described 

hereinabove. The acts of Defendants have legally caused and will continue to cause irreparable 

injury to Plaintiff if not enjoined by this court.

65. Wherefore, Plaintiff asks this court to preliminarily and permanently any continuing refusal by 

Defendants to permit entry to said Business and to serve Plaintiff or others similarly situated, 

and to require Defendants to comply forthwith with the applicable statutory requirements 

relating to the full and equal enjoyment of goods and services as described hereinabove for 

disabled persons. Plaintiff further requests that the court award statutory costs and attorneys' 

fees to Plaintiff pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §I021.5, all as hereinafter 

prayed for.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of 

suit, as allowed by statute and according to proof.

IV. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA UNRUH CIVIL 

RIGHTS ACT (California Civil Code §51 and §51.5.)

66. Plaintiff repleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth again herein, the 

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to 65 above and incorporates them herein as if separately 

pled.

67. Defendant’ acts and omissions as specified with regard to the discriminatory treatment of 

Plaintiff, on the basis of his disabilities, have been in violation of California Civil Code §§51 

and 51.5, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and have denied to Plaintiff his rights to “full and equal 

accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments of 

every kind whatsoever.”

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 20 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-21- 

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

68. California Civil Code §51 also provides that “[a] violation of the right of any individual under 

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336) shall also constitute a 

violation of this section.”

69. California Civil Code §51.5 also provides that “[no business establishment of any kind 

whatsoever shall discriminate against, boycott, or blacklist, refuse to buy from, sell to, or trade 

with any person in this state because of the race, creed, religion, color, national origin, sex, 

disability of the person or of the person's partners, members, stockholders, directors, officers, 

managers, superintendents, agents, employees, business associates, suppliers, or customers.”

70. As a result of the violation of Plaintiffs civil rights protected by California Civil Code §§51 

and 51.5, Plaintiff is entitled to the rights and remedies of California Civil Code §52, including 

a trebling of actual damages (defined by California Civil Code §52(h) to mean "special and 

general damages"), as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, as allowed by statute, 

according to proof. California Civil Code §55 is specifically not invoked by plaintiff.

71. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this court award damages and provide relief asfollows:

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff prays that this court award damages and provide relief as follows:

1. Grant injunctive relief requiring that Defendants establish a nondiscriminatory

criteria policy, practice and procedure permitting entry into the subject Business in

the City of El Cerrito, California, for the purpose of obtaining the goods and services accorded 

therein according to California Civil Code §§51, 51.5, 52, 54, 54.1, and 54.3, California Health and 

Safety Code §19953 et seq., and Title Ill of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and grant 

injunctive relief requiring that Defendants repair and render safe to disabled persons, and otherwise 

make accessible, all public areas of the Business’ store, including, but not limited to, each of the 

barriers to access identified above, and make such facilities “readily accessible to and usable” by 

individuals with disabilities according to the standards of Title 24 of the California Administrative 

Code, California Health & Safety Code §19955 et seq., and Title Ill of the Americans with 

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 21 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-22- 

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

Disabilities Act of 1990 and the standards of ADAAG; and prohibiting operation of the Business 

located in the City of El Cerrito, California, as a public facility until Defendants provide full and 

equal enjoyment of goods and services as described hereinabove to disabled persons, including 

Plaintiff.

2. General damages according to proof.

3. Statutory and “actual” damages, including general damages and special damages, according 

to proof, pursuant to California Civil Code §§52, and 54.3, and that these damages be 

trebled. Plaintiff acknowledges that damages cannot be claimed under both the Unruh Act 

and the California Disabled Persons Act; he will make an election before or at trial in this 

respect.

4. Prejudgment interest on all compensatory damages;

5. Remedies and Procedures available under Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, §§I 

07,203 and 308.

6. Award Plaintiff all litigation expenses, all costs of this proceeding and a reasonable 

attorneys' fees as provided by law, including, but not limited to, those recoverable pursuant 

to the provisions of California Civil Code §§52 and 54.3, California Code of Civil 

Procedure §1021.5, and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 5308 of Title Ill; and

7. Grant such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

/s/ Richard A. Mac Bride

Richard A. Mac Bride, Attorney for Plaintiff

Date: February 9, 2017

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby requests a jury for all claims for which a jury is permitted.

/s/ Richard A. Mac Bride

Richard A. Mac Bride, Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 22 of 23
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint for damages and injunctive relief

-23- 

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

Date: February 9, 2017

VERIFICATION

I, Jose Daniel Castillo-Antonio, plaintiff herein, hereby swear under penalty of perjury under the 

laws of the State of California as follows: I am familiar with the contents of this complaint and 

verify that the facts alleged are true and correct according to my personal knowledge, except as to 

those matters that are pled on information and belief, and as to those matters, I have reason to 

believe that they are true.

/s/ Jose Daniel Castillo-Antonio

Jose Daniel Castillo-Antonio

Date: February 9, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00707-CRB Document 1 Filed 02/13/17 Page 23 of 23