This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/16/2021 at 13:35:29 (UTC).

BRIAN WHITAKER VS ONIK KRIKOR

Case Summary

On 06/09/2020 BRIAN WHITAKER filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against ONIK KRIKOR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4791

  • Filing Date:

    06/09/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

WHITAKER BRIAN

Defendant

KRIKOR ONIK

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BALLISTER RAYMOND G. JR.

 

Court Documents

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

6/9/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

6/9/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Summons - Summons on Complaint

6/9/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

6/9/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/9/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

6/18/2020: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

7/2/2020: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Reply (name extension) - Reply Reply

7/2/2020: Reply (name extension) - Reply Reply

Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

8/12/2021: Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

8/12/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Separate Statement - Separate Statement

8/12/2021: Separate Statement - Separate Statement

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration & Exhibits

8/12/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration & Exhibits

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

8/12/2021: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

11/2/2021: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice (name extension) - Notice of non-receipt of opposition

11/1/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of non-receipt of opposition

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

11/3/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

11/2/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/15/2022
  • Hearing03/15/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion for Summary Judgment: Filed By: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff); Result: Denied; Result Date: 11/03/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled for 11/03/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 11/03/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff); As to: Onik Krikor (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2021
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2021
  • DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/07/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 03/15/2022 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2021
  • DocketNotice of non-receipt of opposition; Filed by: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff); As to: Onik Krikor (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 06/13/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Advanced and Vacated on 06/18/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/12/2021
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
9 More Docket Entries
  • 07/02/2020
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Onik Krikor (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff); As to: Onik Krikor (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 06/16/2020; Service Cost: 20.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/07/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 06/13/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff); As to: Onik Krikor (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff); As to: Onik Krikor (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Brian Whitaker (Plaintiff); As to: Onik Krikor (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 20STLC04791 Hearing Date: November 3, 2021 Dept: 26

Whitaker v. Krikor, et\r\nal. 20STLC04791

MOTION\r\nFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

\r\n\r\n

(CCP §\r\n437c)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Brian Whitaker’s Motion for Summary Judgment is\r\nDENIED.

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Brian\r\nWhitaker (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for violation of the\r\nUnruh Civil Rights Act (“the Unruh Act”) against Defendant Onik Krikor (“Defendant”)\r\non June 09, 2020. Defendant, in pro per, filed an Answer on July 2, 2020. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary\r\nJudgment (“the Motion”) on August 12, 2021. No opposition has been filed to\r\ndate.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff alleges he is a California resident with physical\r\ndisabilities. (Compl., ¶1.) He further alleges that Defendant owned Serenity\r\nHair Salon (“the Salon”) in Sherman Oaks, California in March 2019 and owns the\r\nSalon currently. (Id. at ¶¶2-3.) Plaintiff allegedly visited the Salon\r\non March 29, 2019 and on that date, Defendant failed to provide accessible\r\nsales counters. (Id. at ¶¶6, 10.) Plaintiff alleges he personally\r\nencountered this accessibility violation, which caused him difficulty and\r\ndiscomfort. (Id. at ¶¶12-13.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s Initial Burden of Proof

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On a motion for summary adjudication of a particular cause\r\nof action, a moving plaintiff must show that there is no defense by proving\r\neach element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on that\r\ncause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Then the burden\r\nshifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material\r\nfacts exists as to that cause of action or a defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,\r\nsubd. (p)(1).) Additionally, in ruling on the Motion, the Court must view the “evidence\r\n[citations] and such inferences [citations], in the light most favorable to the\r\nopposing party.” (Intrieri v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 72,\r\n81 [citing Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826,\r\n843].)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A violation of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) is\r\na violation of section 51, subdivision (f) of California’s Unruh Act. (Cal.\r\nCiv. Code, § 51, subd. (f).) Statutory penalties are available for\r\nconstruction-related accessibility violations of the Unruh Act if a patron is denied\r\nfull and equal access to the place of public accommodation on a particular\r\noccasion. (Cal. Civ. Code, § 55.56, subd. (a).) A denial of full and equal\r\naccess to the place of public accommodation occurs when a patron experiences\r\ndifficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment due to the violation. (Cal. Civ. Code,\r\n§ 55.56, subd. (c).) Failure to remove a physical element of the property that\r\ndoes not meet the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities\r\n(“ADAAG”) amounts to discrimination under the ADA. (42 U.S.C., § 12182, subd.\r\n(b)(2)(A)(iv).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly, the elements of a claim for violation of the\r\nUnruh Act are that: (1) Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability;\r\n(2) Defendant owned, leased, or operated a place of public accommodation; (3)\r\nthe place of public accommodation was in violation of one or more\r\nconstruction-related accessibility standards; (4) the violations denied\r\nPlaintiff full and equal access to the place of public accommodation; (5) the\r\nviolations were personally encountered by Plaintiff on a particular occasion;\r\n(6) Plaintiff experienced difficulty, discomfort or embarrassment due to the\r\nviolations; and (7) the discrimination was intentional unless premised\r\nexclusively upon a violation of the ADA. (Cal. Civ. Code § 55.56; Mundy v.\r\nPro-Thro Enterprises (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1; Surrey v.\r\nTrueBeginnings (2009) 168 Cal.App.4th 414.) \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

In support of the Motion, Plaintiff presents the following\r\nevidence. On March 29, 2019, Plaintiff went to the Salon to get his hair done. (Motion,\r\nSeparate Statement, Fact No. 5; Whitaker Decl., ¶3 and Exh. 2.)

\r\n\r\n

Upon approaching, Plaintiff looked inside the Salon and saw\r\nno lowered sales/service counter. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 6;\r\nWhitaker Decl., ¶4 and Exh. 3.) The idea of having to handle check-in and\r\npayment at a higher sales counter caused Plaintiff difficulty and discomfort.\r\n(Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 7; Whitaker Decl., ¶5.) As a result,\r\nPlaintiff was deterred from using the Salon and left without patronizing it.\r\n(Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 8; Whitaker Decl., ¶6 and Exh. 2.) Plaintiff’s\r\ninvestigator, Evens Louis, visited the Salon on January 9, 2020 and observed\r\none counter being used to serve customers. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact Nos.\r\n9-10; Louis Decl., ¶¶2-4 and Exh. 5.) The counter was 45 inches tall. (Motion,\r\nSeparate Statement, Fact No. 10; Louis Decl., ¶4 and Exh. 5.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s evidence does not demonstrate all the elements\r\nof a claim for violation of the Unruh Act. Plaintiff does not present evidence\r\nthat on March 29, 2019, the sales / service counter at Serenity Hair Salon violated\r\nthe counter height requirements of the ADA, set forth at 36 C.F.R., section\r\n1191.1, Appendix D to Part 1191 – Technical, at section 904. Plaintiff only\r\ndeclares that he observed from outside of the Salon that there was no compliant\r\ncounter. This does not demonstrate that there was no compliant counter beyond\r\nPlaintiff’s line of sight. (See Motion, Whitaker Decl., ¶4 and Exh. 3.) The\r\nphotographs taken by Plaintiff do not show much of the Salon except the very\r\nfront of the property. (Ibid.) Nor does the declaration of Plaintiff’s\r\ninvestigator speak to the Salon’s counter height on the date of Plaintiff’s\r\nvisit. Louis did not go to the Salon until January 9, 2020, which was more than\r\nsix months after Plaintiff’s visit. (Motion, Louis Decl., ¶2.) Also, the\r\nphotographs taken by Louis show a lowered counter space adjacent to the front\r\ncounter. (Id. at Exh. 5.) Plaintiff’s Motion does not address whether\r\nthis lowered portion of the counter existed on the date of his visit and\r\nwhether it conforms with the ADA requirements.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Additionally, Plaintiff has not shown that he personally\r\nencountered the alleged accessibility violations, as alleged in the Complaint.\r\nPlaintiff’s declaration demonstrates that he did not enter the Salon because he\r\nwas deterred by what he perceived to be the only sales/service counter from\r\noutside of the premises. (Motion, Whitaker Decl., ¶¶4-6.) Plaintiff has not\r\nshown that he was deterred from the Salon because he personally encountered the\r\ncounter; indeed, he never went inside the Salon.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

This evidence, therefore, is not sufficient to carry\r\nPlaintiff’s initial burden of proof regarding each element of the claim for\r\nviolation of the Unruh Ace. The Court cannot find there are no triable issue of\r\nmaterial fact regarding the existence of an ADA-compliant counter in the Salon.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff Brian Whitaker’s Motion for Summary Judgment is\r\nDENIED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Court clerk to give notice.

'
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS - RAYMOND G BALLISTER JR