This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/03/2021 at 07:54:35 (UTC).

JOVANY J. MUNOZ VS EDUARDO CHANTRE, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 12/12/2019 JOVANY J MUNOZ filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against EDUARDO CHANTRE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1350

  • Filing Date:

    12/12/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

MUNOZ JOVANY J.

Defendants

JEYLIM INVESTMENTS LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

CHANTRE EDUARDO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

GRACE PHYL

Defendant Attorneys

ABRAHAM STEPHEN

ABRAHAM STEPHEN E

 

Court Documents

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration and Exhibits

2/24/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration and Exhibits

Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

2/24/2021: Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

2/24/2021: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Exhibit List - Exhibit List

2/24/2021: Exhibit List - Exhibit List

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Herrera Declaration ISO Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

4/26/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Herrera Declaration ISO Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

4/26/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

Request (name extension) - Request for the court to accept late-filed Reply brief in support of Motion for Summary Judgment

5/10/2021: Request (name extension) - Request for the court to accept late-filed Reply brief in support of Motion for Summary Judgment

Response (name extension) - Response to Defendants Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Exhibits

5/10/2021: Response (name extension) - Response to Defendants Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Exhibits

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment) of 05/10/2021

5/10/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment) of 05/10/2021

Response (name extension) - Response TO REGARDING PLAINTIFFS STATEMENTS REGARDING SERVICE AND LATENO REPLY REGARDING PLAINTIFFS MSJ

5/10/2021: Response (name extension) - Response TO REGARDING PLAINTIFFS STATEMENTS REGARDING SERVICE AND LATENO REPLY REGARDING PLAINTIFFS MSJ

Reply (name extension) - Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

5/10/2021: Reply (name extension) - Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

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

5/10/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Isabel Rose Masanque in Support of Request for the court to accept Plaintiffs late-filed Reply brief

5/10/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Isabel Rose Masanque in Support of Request for the court to accept Plaintiffs late-filed Reply brief

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

5/12/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

12/12/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

12/12/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

12/12/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

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

12/12/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

15 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/15/2022
  • Hearing12/15/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2021
  • Hearing10/28/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2021
  • DocketStipulation and Order Joint Stipulation To Continue And Proposed Order; Signed and Filed by: JOVANY J. MUNOZ (Plaintiff); As to: EDUARDO CHANTRE (Defendant); JEYLIM INVESTMENTS,LLC,a California Limited Liability company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2021
  • DocketPursuant to written stipulation, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/10/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Continued - Stipulation was rescheduled to 10/28/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by: JOVANY J. MUNOZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2021
  • DocketReply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by: JOVANY J. MUNOZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2021
  • DocketResponse to Defendants Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Exhibits; Filed by: JOVANY J. MUNOZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2021
  • DocketRequest for the court to accept late-filed Reply brief in support of Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by: JOVANY J. MUNOZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2021
  • DocketDeclaration of Isabel Rose Masanque in Support of Request for the court to accept Plaintiffs late-filed Reply brief; Filed by: JOVANY J. MUNOZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2021
  • DocketResponse TO REGARDING PLAINTIFFS STATEMENTS REGARDING SERVICE AND LATENO REPLY REGARDING PLAINTIFFS MSJ; Filed by: EDUARDO CHANTRE (Defendant); JEYLIM INVESTMENTS,LLC,a California Limited Liability company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
16 More Docket Entries
  • 01/14/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: JOVANY J. MUNOZ (Plaintiff); As to: EDUARDO CHANTRE (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 01/10/2020; Service Cost: 30.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/14/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: JOVANY J. MUNOZ (Plaintiff); As to: JEYLIM INVESTMENTS,LLC,a California Limited Liability company (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 01/10/2020; Service Cost: 30.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: JOVANY J. MUNOZ (Plaintiff); As to: EDUARDO CHANTRE (Defendant); JEYLIM INVESTMENTS,LLC,a California Limited Liability company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: JOVANY J. MUNOZ (Plaintiff); As to: EDUARDO CHANTRE (Defendant); JEYLIM INVESTMENTS,LLC,a California Limited Liability company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: JOVANY J. MUNOZ (Plaintiff); As to: EDUARDO CHANTRE (Defendant); JEYLIM INVESTMENTS,LLC,a California Limited Liability company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 12/15/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 06/10/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC11350    Hearing Date: May 10, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., May 10, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Chilton/25

CASE NAME: Munoz v. Chantre, et al. COMPL. FILED: 12-12-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC11350 DISC. C/O: 05-11-21

NOTICE: NO DISC. MOT. C/O: 05-26-21

TRIAL DATE: 06-10-21

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jovany J. Munoz

RESP. PARTY: Defendant Jeylim Investments, LLC

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Jovany J. Munoz’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a) OK

[ ] 75/80 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) NO

OPPOSITION: Filed on April 26, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of May 6, 2021 [X] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On December 12, 2019, Plaintiff Jovany J. Munoz (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act against Defendants Eduardo Chantre, individually and as trustee of the Eduard Chantre Revocable Trust (“Chantre”) and Jeylim Investments, LLC (“Jeylim”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants filed an Answer on February 14, 2020.

On February 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). Defendants filed an opposition on April 26. No reply brief was filed.

II. Legal Standard

A party seeking summary judgment has the burden of producing evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle him/her to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153.) The moving party must make an affirmative showing that he/she is entitled to judgment irrespective of whether or not the opposing party files an opposition. (Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733.)

When a Defendant or Cross-Defendant seeks summary judgment, he/she must show either (1) that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established; or (2) that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) When a Plaintiff or Cross-Complainant seeks summary judgment, he/she must produce admissible evidence on each element of each cause of action on which judgment is sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) The moving party’s “affidavits must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or ‘ultimate’ facts” and be strictly construed. (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519; Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639.)

The opposing party on a motion for summary judgment is under no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence until the moving party meets his or her initial movant’s burden. (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832.) Once the initial movant’s burden is met, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show, with admissible evidence, that there is a triable issue requiring the weighing procedures of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p).) The opposing party may not simply rely on his/her allegations to show a triable issue but must present evidentiary facts that are substantial in nature and rise beyond mere speculation. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151.) As to any alternative request for summary adjudication of issues, such alternative relief must be clearly set forth in the Notice of Motion and the general burden-shifting rules apply but the issues upon which summary adjudication may be sought are limited by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)

III. Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of (1) Complaint and First Amended Complaint filed in Munoz v. Chantre, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-09954-ODW-AS in United States District Court (the “Federal Action”); (2) the declaration of Eric Herrera filed on July 18, 2019 in support of the motion for partial summary judgment in the Federal Action; (3) the declaration of Craig Lobnow filed on July 18, 2019 in support of the motion for partial summary judgment in the Federal Action; (4) Separate Statement filed on July 18, 2019 as part of the motion for partial summary judgment in the Federal Action; and (5) the District Court’s November 26, 2019 judgment in the Federal Action. (Mot., RJN, Exhs. 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9.)

Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

IV. Discussion

A. Proper Notice

Code of Civil Procedure section 437c requires 75 days’ notice of a motion for summary judgment, plus two calendar days if served electronically. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a); 1010.6, subd. (a).)

Here, the Motion was served electronically and via regular mail on February 24, 2021. Thus, the earliest the Motion could have been scheduled for hearing was May 12, 2021. Instead, the Motion was noticed for May 10. This is insufficient notice. It appears this was done in an effort to avoid Section 437c, subdivision (a)(3), which states that a motion for summary judgment cannot be heard later than 30 days before the date set for trial absent good cause.

However, Defendants filed an opposition on the merits, waiving any deficiency in notice. (Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 697.) Thus, the Court proceeds to make a ruling on the merits.

B. Unruh Civil Rights Violation

A violation of any individual right under the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) is also a violation of California’s Unruh Act. (Civ. Code § 51, subd. (f).) Under the ADA, “[n]o 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 of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” (42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).) A place of public accommodation includes establishments that serve food or drink. (42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(B).) Under the ADA, discrimination includes “a failure to remove architectural barriers…, in existing facilities…, where such removal is readily achievable.” (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).)

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).) Any barrier that does not meet the standards set forth in the ADAAG is considered a barrier to access. (Skaff v. Rio Nido Roadhouse (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 522, 534.) Under the ADAAGs, wheelchair-accessible toilet compartments must be 60 inches wide and 56 inches deep for wall-hung water closets or 59 inches deep for floor-mounted water closets. (36 C.F.R. Pt. 1191, App. D, § 604.8.1.1.)

In summary, 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; and (6) Plaintiff experienced difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment due to the violations. (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.) Intentional discrimination need not be proved to obtain damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act when the plaintiff establishes a violation of the ADA. (Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 665.)

B. Plaintiff’s Burden

Plaintiff seeks summary judgment against Defendant Jeylim only. (Notice of Mot., pp. 1:24-2:4.)

The following facts are undisputed: (1) that Plaintiff is a paraplegic, cannot walk, and uses on a wheelchair for mobility; (2) that Defendant Jeylim owned and operated Godtti’s (“Godtti’s”), a restaurant/nightclub, located at 7931 Firestone Blvd., Downey, CA in March 2018; (3) that Plaintiff went to Godtti’s on March 24, 2018 to celebrate a friend’s birthday; (4) that on the date of Plaintiff’s visit, there was a partition inside a restroom, creating a stall around the toilet; and (5) that on the date of Plaintiff’s visit, the toilet stall Plaintiff encountered at Godtti’s measured less than 60 x 56 inches. (Mot., Plf. Sep. Stmt., Nos. 1-4, 7.)

As to the remaining elements, Plaintiff presents his declaration attesting that, on his March 24, 2018 visit to Godtti’s, he needed to use the restroom. (Mot., Munoz Decl., ¶ 4.) He further states he tried to fit in the restroom stall but was not able to fit his wheelchair through the doorway, causing him great discomfort. (Id. at ¶ 6.) He further states he suffered embarrassment because he had to ask a friend to help him find another restroom and ultimately had to leave the party because he could not use the restroom, causing him further embarrassment. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Although the measurements of the stall are not in dispute, Plaintiff provides three photographs of the restroom stall in question. (Id. at ¶ 8, Exh. 2.)

As discussed above, an essential element of this action is Plaintiff’s state of mind, specifically his embarrassment, discomfort, or difficulty that resulted from the alleged barrier. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (e), even when a party is otherwise entitled to summary judgment, it may be denied “if the only proof of a material fact offered in support of the summary judgment is an affidavit or declaration made by an individual who was the sole witness to that fact; or, if a material fact is an individual’s state of mind, or lack thereof, and that fact is sought to be established solely by the individual’s affirmation thereof.”

Because Plaintiff seeks to establish his state of mind solely via his declaration, this Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

V. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Jovany J. Munoz’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where JEYLIM INVESTMENTS LLC DBA BAJAS GRILL/LOUNGE; GODTTI'S AND 562 ULTRA LOUNGE is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ABRAHAM STEPHEN EDWARD