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

CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS

Ray Ballister, Jr., Esq., SBN 111282 Russell Handy, Esq., SBN 195058

Phyl Grace, Esq., SBN 171771

Dennis Price, SBN 279082

Teresa Allen, SBN 264865

Mail: PO Box 262490

San Diego, CA 92196-2490

Delivery: 9845 Erma Road, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92131

(858) 375-7385; (888) 422-5191 fax

phylg@potterhandy.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Scott Johnson,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

Flamengo & Teng Associates 

No.2, L.P., a California Limited 

Partnership; Su Li Teng;

Denedualdo V. Loy; Dusita Thai Cuisine, a California 

Corporation; and Does 1-10,

 Defendants.

Case No. 

Complaint For Damages And 

Injunctive Relief For Violations 

Of: American’s With Disabilities 

Act; Unruh Civil Rights Act

Plaintiff Scott Johnson complains of Defendants Flamengo & Teng 

Associates No.2, L.P., a California Limited Partnership; Su Li Teng; 

Denedualdo V. Loy; Dusita Thai Cuisine, a California Corporation; and Does 

1-10 (“Defendants”), and alleges as follows:

PARTIES:

1. Plaintiff is a California resident with physical disabilities. Plaintiff is a 

level C-5 quadriplegic. He cannot walk and also has significant manual 

1

Complaint

Case 5:17-cv-00703-NC Document 1 Filed 02/12/17 Page 1 of 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

dexterity impairments. He uses a wheelchair for mobility and has a specially 

equipped van.

2. Defendant Flamengo & Teng Associates No.2, L.P. owned the real

property located at or about 2325 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California, in 

August 2016. 

3. Defendant Flamengo & Teng Associates No.2, L.P. owned the real

property located at or about 2325 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California, in 

October 2016.

4. Defendant Flamengo & Teng Associates No.2, L.P. owned the real

property located at or about 2325 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California, in 

November 2016.

5. Defendant Flamengo & Teng Associates No.2, L.P. owned the real 

property located at or about 2325 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California, in 

December 2016.

6. Defendant Flamengo & Teng Associates No.2, L.P. owns the real 

property located at or about 2325 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California, 

currently.

7. Defendant Su Li Teng owned the real property located at or about 2325 

El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California, in August 2016. 

8. Defendant Su Li Teng owned the real property located at or about 2325 

El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California, in October 2016.

9. Defendant Su Li Teng owned the real property located at or about 2325 

El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California, in November 2016.

10. Defendant Su Li Teng owned the real property located at or about 2325 

El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California, in December 2016.

11. Defendant Su Li Teng owns the real property located at or about 2325 

El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California, currently.

12. Defendant Denedualdo V. Loy owned the Las Flamas located at or 

2

Complaint

Case 5:17-cv-00703-NC Document 1 Filed 02/12/17 Page 2 of 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

about 2325 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California, in August 2016. 

13. Defendant Denedualdo V. Loy owned the Las Flamas located at or 

about 2325 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California, in October 2016.

14. Defendant Denedualdo V. Loy owned the Las Flamas located at or 

about 2325 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California, in November 2016.

15. Defendant Denedualdo V. Loy owned the Las Flamas located at or 

about 2325 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California, in December 2016.

16. Defendant Denedualdo V. Loy owns the Las Flamas (“Las Flamas”)

located at or about 2325 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California, currently.

17. Defendant Dusita Thai Cuisine owned the Dusita Thai Cuisine located 

at or about 2325 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California, in August 2016. 

18. Defendant Dusita Thai Cuisine owned the Dusita Thai Cuisine located 

at or about 2325 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California, in October 2016.

19. Defendant Dusita Thai Cuisine owned the Dusita Thai Cuisine located 

at or about 2325 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California, in November 2016.

20. Defendant Dusita Thai Cuisine owned the Dusita Thai Cuisine located 

at or about 2325 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, California, in December 2016.

21. Defendant Dusita Thai Cuisine owns the Dusita Thai Cuisine (“Dusita 

Thai Cuisine”) located at or about 2325 El Camino Real, Santa Clara, 

California, currently.

22. Plaintiff does not know the true names of Defendants, their business 

capacities, their ownership connection to the property and business, or their 

relative responsibilities in causing the access violations herein complained of, 

and alleges a joint venture and common enterprise by all such Defendants. 

Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the Defendants herein, 

including Does 1 through 10, inclusive, is responsible in some capacity for the 

events herein alleged, or is a necessary party for obtaining appropriate relief. 

Plaintiff will seek leave to amend when the true names, capacities, 

3

Complaint

Case 5:17-cv-00703-NC Document 1 Filed 02/12/17 Page 3 of 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

connections, and responsibilities of the Defendants and Does 1 through 10, 

inclusive, are ascertained.

JURISDICTION & VENUE:

23. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343(a)(3) & (a)(4) for violations of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.

24. Pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction, an attendant and related cause 

of action, arising from the same nucleus of operative facts and arising out of 

the same transactions, is also brought under California’s Unruh Civil Rights 

Act, which act expressly incorporates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

25. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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 cause of action arose in this district.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS:

26. Plaintiff has gone to Las Flamas and Dusita Thai Cuisine on a number 

of occasions during the relevant statutory period, including August 2016, 

October 2016, November 2016 and December 2016. Plaintiff went there to 

eat.

27. Las Flamas and Dusita Thai Cuisine are facilities open to the public,

places of public accommodation, and business establishments.

28. Parking spaces are one of the facilities, privileges, and advantages 

offered by Defendants to patrons of Las Flamas and Dusita Thai Cuisine.

29. Unfortunately, the parking lot serving Las Flamas and Dusita Thai 

Cuisine is not van accessible.

30. There is one parking space marked and reserved for persons with 

disabilities but it measured 96 inches in width while the access aisle measured 

4

Complaint

Case 5:17-cv-00703-NC Document 1 Filed 02/12/17 Page 4 of 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

just 60 inches in width. This is not van accessible.

31. Additionally, the parking stall and access aisle were not level with each 

other because there was a built up curb ramp running into the access aisle.

32. This curb ramp caused slopes greater than 2.1%.

33. The standard handicap parking space did not have the required 

“Minimum Fine $250” signage.

34. The standard handicap parking space did not have the required towaway signage.

35. The standard handicap parking space did not have the required “NO 

PARKING” lettering in the access aisle. 

36. Currently, there is one standard handicap parking space but the parking 

space is not compliant with the law. 

37. Currently, there is no van-accessible parking.

38. Currently, Defendants fail to maintain this parking space in compliance 

with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).

39. Currently, the parking stall and access aisle are not level with each other 

because there is a built up curb ramp running into the access aisle.

40. Currently, this curb ramp causes slopes greater than 2.1%.

41. Currently, the standard handicap parking space does not have the 

required “Minimum Fine $250” signage.

42. Currently, the standard handicap parking space does not have the 

required tow-away signage.

43. Currently, the standard handicap parking space does not have the

required “NO PARKING” lettering in the access aisle. 

44. The Defendants had no policy or plan in place to make sure that the 

parking space reserved for persons with disabilities remained useable prior to 

plaintiff’s visits.

45. The Defendants have no policy or plan in place to make sure that the 

5

Complaint

Case 5:17-cv-00703-NC Document 1 Filed 02/12/17 Page 5 of 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

parking space reserved for persons with disabilities remain useable, currently.

46. Additionally, there is an insufficient number of accessible parking 

spaces. There are approximately 27 parking spaces in the parking lot but only 

1 space is reserved for persons with disabilities.

47. Path of travels are another one of the facilities, privileges, and 

advantages offered by Defendants to patrons of Las Flamas and Dusita Thai 

Cuisine.

48. The path of travel to the restroom of Las Flamas was less than 36 inches. 

It was obstructed by kitchen supplies that were stored there. 

49. The path of travel from the handicap parking space was narrowed to less 

than 36 inches because of a telephone booth.

50. Currently, the path of travel to the restroom of Las Flamas is less than 

36 inches. It is obstructed by kitchen supplies that are stored there. 

51. Currently, the path of travel from the handicap parking space is 

narrowed to less than 36 inches because of a telephone booth.

52. Transaction counters are also one of the facilities, privileges, and 

advantages offered by Defendants to patrons of Las Flamas.

53. The transaction counter at Las Flamas was more than 36 inches in 

height.

54. There was no lowered, 36 inch portion of the transaction counter at Las 

Flamas for use by persons in wheelchairs.

55. Currently, the transaction counter at Las Flamas is more than 36 inches 

in height.

56. Currently, there is no lowered, 36 inch portion of the transaction 

counter at Las Flamas for use by persons in wheelchairs.

57. Restrooms are one of the facilities, privileges, and advantages offered 

by Defendants to patrons of Dusita Thai Cuisine.

58. The restroom mirror was mounted on the wall so that its bottom edge 

6

Complaint

Case 5:17-cv-00703-NC Document 1 Filed 02/12/17 Page 6 of 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

was more than 40 inches above the finish floor.

59. The restroom sink was mounted such that the counter or rim was higher 

than 34 inches above the finish floor.

60. The paper towel dispenser was mounted so that its highest operable part 

was greater than 54 inches above the finish floor and inaccessible to 

wheelchair users.

61. There was no clear floor space in front of the disposable toilet seat cover

dispenser because it was mounted on the wall behind the toilet. 

62. Currently, the restroom mirror is mounted on the wall so that its bottom 

edge is more than 40 inches above the finish floor.

63. Currently, the restroom sink is mounted such that the counter or rim is 

higher than 34 inches above the finish floor.

64. Currently, the paper towel dispenser is mounted so that its highest 

operable part is greater than 54 inches above the finish floor and inaccessible 

to wheelchair users.

65. Currently, there is no clear floor space in front of the disposable toilet 

seat cover dispenser because it is mounted on the wall behind the toilet.

66. The barriers existed during each of plaintiff’s visits in 2016. 

67. The plaintiff frequents the Santa Clara area and has visited there on 

scores of occasions last year. He ate at Dusita Thai Cuisine in October 2016 

and December 2016 and Las Flamas in November 2016 and encountered the 

barriers. He visited Las Flamas and DusitaThai Cuisine on two other occasions 

but was deterred from going inside.

68. Plaintiff visited Las Flamas and Dusita Thai Cuisine once in August 

2016.

69. Plaintiff visited Las Flamas and Dusita Thai Cuisine twice in October 

2016.

70. Plaintiff visited Las Flamas once in November 2016.

7

Complaint

Case 5:17-cv-00703-NC Document 1 Filed 02/12/17 Page 7 of 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

71. Plaintiff visited Dusita Thai Cuisine once in December 2016.

72. These barriers caused Plaintiff difficulty and frustration.

73. Plaintiff would like to return and patronize Las Flamas and Dusita Thai 

Cuisine but will be deterred from visiting until the defendants cure the 

violations. 

74. The defendants have failed to maintain in working and useable 

conditions those features required to provide ready access to persons with 

disabilities.

75. The violations identified above are easily removed without much 

difficulty or expense. They are the types of barriers identified by the 

Department of Justice as presumably readily achievable to remove and, in fact, 

these barriers are readily achievable to remove. Moreover, there are numerous 

alternative accommodations that could be made to provide a greater level of 

access if complete removal were not achievable.

76. Plaintiff is and has been deterred from returning and patronizing Las 

Flamas and Dusita Thai Cuisine because of his knowledge of the illegal 

barriers that exist. Plaintiff will, nonetheless, return to assess ongoing 

compliance with the ADA and will return to patronize Las Flamas and Dusita 

Thai Cuisine as a customer once the barriers are removed.

77. Given the obvious and blatant violation, the plaintiff alleges, on 

information and belief, that there are other violations and barriers on the site 

that relate to his disability. Plaintiff will amend the complaint, to provide 

proper notice regarding the scope of this lawsuit, once he conducts a site 

inspection. However, please be on notice that the plaintiff seeks to have all 

barriers related to his disability remedied. See Doran v. 7-11, 524 F.3d 1034 

(9th Cir. 2008) (holding that once a plaintiff encounters one barrier at a site, 

he can sue to have all barriers that relate to his disability removed regardless of 

whether he personally encountered them).

8

Complaint

Case 5:17-cv-00703-NC Document 1 Filed 02/12/17 Page 8 of 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

78. Additionally, on information and belief, the plaintiff alleges that the 

failure to remove these barriers was intentional because: (1) these particular 

barriers are intuitive and obvious; (2) the defendants exercised control and 

dominion over the conditions at this location and, therefore, the lack of 

accessible facilities was not an “accident” because had the defendants 

intended any other configuration, they had the means and ability to make the 

change.

I. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS 

WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 (On behalf of Plaintiff and against all 

Defendants.) (42 U.S.C. section 12101, et seq.)

79. Plaintiff re-pleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth 

again herein, the allegations contained in all prior paragraphs of this

complaint. 

80. Under the ADA, it is an act of discrimination to fail to ensure that the 

privileges, advantages, accommodations, facilities, goods and services of any 

place of public accommodation is offered on a full and equal basis by anyone 

who owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12182(a). Discrimination is defined, inter alia, as follows:

a. A failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, 

or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford 

goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or 

accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the 

accommodation would work a fundamental alteration of those 

services and facilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).

b. A failure to remove architectural barriers where such removal is 

readily achievable. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). Barriers are 

defined by reference to the ADAAG, found at 28 C.F.R., Part 36, 

9

Complaint

Case 5:17-cv-00703-NC Document 1 Filed 02/12/17 Page 9 of 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

Appendix “D.”

c. A failure to make alterations in such a manner that, to the 

maximum extent feasible, the altered portions of the facility are 

readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, 

including individuals who use wheelchairs or to ensure that, to the 

maximum extent feasible, the path of travel to the altered area and 

the bathrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the 

altered area, are readily accessible to and usable by individuals 

with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2).

81. Any business that provides parking spaces must provide accessible 

parking spaces. 1991 Standards § 4.1.2(5); 2010 Standards § 208. One in 

every eight of those accessible parking spaces but not less than one must be a 

“van” accessible parking space, i.e., having an eight foot access aisle. 1991 

Standards § 4.1.2(5)(b). Under the 2010 Standards, one in every six accessible 

parking spaces must be van accessible. 2010 Standards § 208.2.4. 

82. Here, the lack of a van-accessible parking space is a violation of the law.

83. Under the 1991 Standards, parking spaces and access aisles must be 

level with surface slopes not exceeding 1:50 (2%) in all directions. 1991 

Standards § 4.6.3. Here, the access aisle is not level and has a ramp taking up 

part of the access aisle. Under the 2010 Standards, access aisles shall be at the 

same level as the parking spaces they serve. Changes in level are not 

permitted. 2010 Standards 502.4. “Access aisle are required to be nearly level 

in all directions to provide a surface for wheelchair transfer to and from 

vehicles.” 2010 Standards § 502.4 Advisory. Specifically, built up curb ramps 

are not permitted to project into access aisles and parking spaces. Id. No more 

than a 1:48 slope is permitted. 2010 Standards § 502.4.

84. Here, the failure to provide level parking is a violation of the law.

85. Any business that provides parking spaces must provide accessible 

10

Complaint

Case 5:17-cv-00703-NC Document 1 Filed 02/12/17 Page 10 of 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

parking spaces. 1991 Standards § 4.1.2(5); 2010 Standards § 208. To qualify 

as a reserved handicap parking space, the space must be properly marked and 

designated. Under the ADA, the method, color of marking, and length of the 

parking space are to be addressed by state or local laws or regulations. See 36 

C.F.R., Part 1191, § 502.3.3. Under the California Building Code, to properly 

and effectively reserve a parking space for persons with disabilities, each 

parking space must be at least 216 inches in length. CBC § 11B-502.2. The 

access aisle must extend the full length of the parking spaces it serves. 2010 

Standards § 502.3.2. Under the California Building Code, a sign must be 

posted in a conspicuous place at the entrance to the parking lot or immediately 

adjacent to each handicap parking space, with lettering 1 inch in height, that 

clearly and conspicuously warn that unauthorized vehicles parking in the 

handicap parking spaces can be towed at the owner’s expense. CBC § 

1129B.4. The surface of the access aisle must have a blue border. CBC § 

1129B.3. The words “NO PARKING” in letters at least a foot high must be 

painted on the access aisle. Id. 

86. Here, Defendants failed to post the required “Minimum Fine $250” 

signs, in violation of the ADA.

87. Here, Defendants failed to post the required tow-away signs, in violation 

of the ADA.

88. Here, there was no “NO PARKING” lettering in the access aisle, in 

violation of the ADA.

89. Any business that provides parking spaces must provide a sufficient 

number of handicap parking spaces. 1991 Standards § 4.1.2(5). 2010 

Standards § 208. According to the 1991 Standards, if a parking lot has 27

spaces, it must have 2 accessible parking spaces. 1991 Standards § 4.1.2(5)(a). 

Under the 2010 Standards, a parking lot with 27 spaces must have 2 accessible 

spaces. 2010 Standards § 208.2 and 1 of them must be van accessible. Id. at 

11

Complaint

Case 5:17-cv-00703-NC Document 1 Filed 02/12/17 Page 11 of 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

208.2.4.

90. Here, there was only one parking space marked and reserved for persons 

with disabilities and it was not van accessible.

91. There must be an accessible path of travel that connects all buildings, 

elements and spaces on the same site. 1991 Standards § 4.3.2. The minimum 

clear width of an accessible route shall be 36 inches. 1991 Standards § 4.3.3.

92. Here, the failure to provide an accessible path of travel to the restroom 

is a violation of the ADA.

93. Here, the failure to provide an accessible path of travel from the 

handicap parking space is a violation of the ADA.

94. In areas used for transactions where counters have cash registers and 

are provided for sales or distribution of goods or services to the public, at least 

one of each type shall have a portion of the counter which is at least 36 inches 

in length with a maximum height of 36 inches above the floor. 1991 Standards 

§ 7.2(1). Under the 2010 Standards, where the approach to the sales or service 

counter is a parallel approach, such as in this case, there must be a portion of 

the sales counter that is no higher than 36 inches above the floor and 36 inches 

in width and must extend the same depth as the rest of the sales or service 

counter top. 2010 Standards § 904.4 & 904.4.1. 

95. Here, no such accessible counter has been provided in violation of the 

ADA.

96. Mirrors shall be mounted with the bottom edge of the reflecting surface 

no higher than 40 inches above the finish floor. 1991 Standards § 4.19.6; 

2010 Standards § 603.3. 

97. Here, the mirror was mounted higher than the maximum permitted and 

is a violation of the ADA.

98. Sinks must be mounted so that the counter or rim is no higher than 34 

inches above the finish floor. 1991 Standards § 4.24.2; 2010 Standards § 

12

Complaint

Case 5:17-cv-00703-NC Document 1 Filed 02/12/17 Page 12 of 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

606.3.

99. Here, the sink was mounted higher than the maximum permitted and is 

a violation of the ADA.

100. If controls, dispensers, receptacles or other equipment is 

provided in a restroom, they must be on an accessible route and be mounted 

so that their highest operable parts are no greater than 54 inches above the 

floor. 1991 Standards § 4.22.7; 4.27. 

101. Here, the failure to ensure that the wall mounted accessories met 

the height requirement is a violation of the ADA.

102. Clear floor space that allows a forward or a parallel approach by a 

person using a wheelchair shall be provided at controls, dispensers, 

receptacles, and other operable equipment. 1991 Standards § 4.27.2; 2010 

Standards § 309.2.

103. Here, the failure to provide such floor space is a violation of the

ADA.

104. A public accommodation must maintain in operable working 

condition those features of its facilities and equipment that are required to be 

readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 

36.211(a).

105. Here, the failure to ensure that the accessible facilities were 

available and ready to be used by the plaintiff is a violation of the law.

106. Given its location and options, plaintiff will continue to desire to 

patronize Las Flamas and Dusita Thai Cuisine but he has been and will 

continue to be discriminated against due to the lack of accessible facilities and, 

therefore, seeks injunctive relief to remove the barriers.

13

Complaint

Case 5:17-cv-00703-NC Document 1 Filed 02/12/17 Page 13 of 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

II. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL 

RIGHTS ACT (On behalf of Plaintiff and against all Defendants.) (Cal. Civ. 

Code § 51-53.)

107. Plaintiff re-pleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set 

forth again herein, the allegations contained in all prior paragraphs of this

complaint. 

108. Because the defendants violated the plaintiff’s rights under the 

ADA, they also violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act and are liable for damages. 

(Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f), 52(a).) 

109. Because the violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act resulted in 

difficulty, discomfort or embarrassment for the plaintiff, the defendants are 

also each responsible for statutory damages, i.e., a civil penalty. (Cal. Civ. Code 

§ 55.56(a)-(c).) 

110. Although the plaintiff was markedly frustrated by facing 

discriminatory barriers and this frustration possibly qualifies as an emotional 

distress injury, even manifesting itself with minor and fleeting physical 

symptoms, the plaintiff does not value this very modest frustration and 

physical personal injury greater than the amount of the statutory damages.

PRAYER: 

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that this Court award damages and provide 

relief as follows:

1. For injunctive relief, compelling Defendants to comply with the 

Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Note: the 

plaintiff is not invoking section 55 of the California Civil Code and is not 

seeking injunctive relief under the Disabled Persons Act at all. 

14

Complaint

Case 5:17-cv-00703-NC Document 1 Filed 02/12/17 Page 14 of 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

2. Damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which provides for actual 

damages and a statutory minimum of $4,000. 

3. Reasonable attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit, pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 12205; and Cal. Civ. Code §§ 52.

Dated: February 7, 2017 CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS

By: ____________________________________

Russell Handy, Esq. 

Attorney for plaintiffs

15

Complaint

Case 5:17-cv-00703-NC Document 1 Filed 02/12/17 Page 15 of 15