This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/25/2021 at 05:09:06 (UTC).

EDGARDO CARRILLO VS HERLINDA BARBA, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 01/23/2020 EDGARDO CARRILLO filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against HERLINDA BARBA. 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:

    *******0734

  • Filing Date:

    01/23/2020

  • 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

CARRILLO EDGARDO

Defendants

MARCO MEAT CO. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

BARBA HERLINDA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BALLISTER RAYMOND G. JR.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial;)

7/22/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial;)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Order to Show Cause Re: why the court should not vacate its p...) of 09/22/2021

9/22/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Order to Show Cause Re: why the court should not vacate its p...) of 09/22/2021

Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default and Default Judgment...)

9/8/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default and Default Judgment...)

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

7/27/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Answer - Answer

9/14/2020: Answer - Answer

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Non-Jury Trial;) of 07/22/2021

7/22/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Non-Jury Trial;) of 07/22/2021

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

7/7/2020: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

8/13/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

8/18/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

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

9/14/2020: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Notice (name extension) - Notice Statement of Uncontroverted Facts

11/5/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Statement of Uncontroverted Facts

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment) of 02/04/2021

2/4/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment) of 02/04/2021

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

2/4/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

Trial Brief - Trial Brief

7/13/2021: Trial Brief - Trial Brief

Witness List - Witness List

7/13/2021: Witness List - Witness List

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

1/23/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint - Complaint

1/23/2020: Complaint - Complaint

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

1/23/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

25 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/24/2022
  • Hearing01/24/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/24/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Answer: Result Date: blank; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Minute Order (Non-Jury Trial;): Result: Stricken; Result Date: 09/22/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: why the court should not vacate its p...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Order to Show Cause Re: why the court should not vacate its p...) of 09/22/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: why the court should not vacate its prior order Striking Defendant?s Answer and, if applicable setting aside entry of default and judgment scheduled for 09/22/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 09/22/2021; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/24/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by EDGARDO CARRILLO on 01/23/2020, Default entered on 08/23/2021, Vacated - .

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default and Default Judgment...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default and Default Judgment...) of 09/08/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
36 More Docket Entries
  • 07/07/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: EDGARDO CARRILLO (Plaintiff); As to: HERLINDA BARBA (Defendant); MARCO MEAT CO.,a California corporation (Defendant); Service Date: 07/02/2020; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: EDGARDO CARRILLO (Plaintiff); As to: HERLINDA BARBA (Defendant); Service Date: 07/02/2020; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/22/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/26/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 26 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: EDGARDO CARRILLO (Plaintiff); As to: HERLINDA BARBA (Defendant); MARCO MEAT CO.,a California corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: EDGARDO CARRILLO (Plaintiff); As to: HERLINDA BARBA (Defendant); MARCO MEAT CO.,a California corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: EDGARDO CARRILLO (Plaintiff); As to: HERLINDA BARBA (Defendant); MARCO MEAT CO.,a California corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC00734    Hearing Date: February 04, 2021    Dept: 26

Carrillo v. Barba, et al.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Edgardo Carrillo’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Edgardo Carrillo (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (“the Unruh Act”) against Defendants Herlinda Barba (“Defendant Barba”) and Marco Meat, Co. (“Defendant Marco Meat”) on January 23, 2020. Following its failure to respond, the Court entered Defendant Marco Meat’s default on August 18, 2020. Defendant Barba filed an Answer on September 14, 2020.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (“the Motion”) on November 5, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

Plaintiff alleges he is a California resident with physical disabilities. (Compl., ¶1.) He further alleges that when he visited Defendants’ store in Lynwood, California on June 6, 2019 they “failed to provide accessible paths of travel inside and outside the Store in conformance with the ADA Standards as it relates to wheelchair users.” (Id. at ¶¶8-11.) The alleged lack of accessible paths of travel caused Plaintiff difficulty and discomfort when he personally encountered the barriers. (Id. at ¶¶12-13.)

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) the federal district court’s decision in Juan Garibay v. Albert Yi-Hong Shen, et al., 2:18-cv-09719-RGK-E; and (2) maps and direction search page result for Marco Meat Company, sellers permit details search page result, business entity search result page for Marco Meat Company, from website of the California Secretary of State.

The Court grants the second request for judicial notice. (See Cal. Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c); Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 518.) The Court denies the first request for judicial notice. (People v. Webster (1991) 54 Cal.3d 411, 428, n. 4 [judicial notice may not be used to circumvent the prohibition against citing unpublished opinions].)

Plaintiff’s Initial Burden of Proof

Plaintiff brings the instant motion for summary judgment (“the Motion”) based on evidence that Defendants cannot demonstrate any defense to the claim for violation of the Unruh Act. The Court initially notes that as Defendant Marco Meat is in default, Plaintiff must proceed to judgment against it pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 585. The Motion as to Defendant Marco Meat is placed off calendar.

On a motion for summary judgment or adjudication of a particular cause of action, a moving plaintiff must show that there is no defense by proving each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Then the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Additionally, in ruling on the Motion, the Court must view the “evidence [citations] and such inferences [citations], in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” (Intrieri v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 72, 81 [citing Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843].)

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

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

In support of the Motion, Plaintiff presents the following evidence. On June 6, 2019, Plaintiff visited Defendants’ Store to buy food. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 2-5; Carrillo Decl., ¶3; Exh. 6.) The Store does not offer parking, so Plaintiff parked on the street. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 6; Carrillo Decl., ¶4.) Plaintiff could not enter the store because there was a step at the entrance. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 7; Carrillo Decl., ¶5 and Exh. 2.) Two bystanders helped Plaintiff get over the barrier. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 7; Carrillo Decl., ¶5 and Exh. 2.) Plaintiff’s investigator, Evens Louis visited the store on June 20, 2019 and found two entrances: the south entrance had a 4-inch step with no ramp and the north entrance had a slope with a gradient of 15 percent. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 8-11; Louis Decl., ¶¶3-7 and Exh. 4.)

Plaintiff first cites to the ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual on the American with Disabilities Act, section 4.4100 for the proposition that an accessible path to the Store entrance must be provided. The first line of section 4.4100 specifically provides that “[p]ublic accommodations must remove architectural barriers and communication barriers that are structural in nature in existing facilities, when it is readily achievable to do so.” Plaintiff’s also points out that ramps must not have a gradient of more than 8.33 percent. (36 C.F.R., Pt. 1191, Appx D (Building Blocks: 405.2).) While Plaintiff presents evidence of the existence of the step and that the ramps were more than the allowed gradient, no evidence is provided regarding whether it was readily achievable for Defendant to change the step at the south entrance or the ramp at the north entrance. Plaintiff admits that proving this element is part of his burden to demonstrate a violation of the ADA. (Motion, pp. 4:20-5:18.) As the Motion does not address whether removal of the barriers Plaintiff encountered was readily achievable, the evidence is not sufficient to carry Plaintiff’s initial burden of proof regarding each element of the Unruh violation.

Conclusion

Therefore, Plaintiff Edgardo Carrillo’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

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