129 F. Supp. 3d 967
S.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiff Enrique Lozano, a paraplegic wheelchair user, sues owners/operators of the Santo Tomas Swap Meet alleging inaccessible/poorly maintained accessible parking (faded markings, blocked access aisles). He frequently patronized the Swap Meet.
- Plaintiff repeatedly encountered access-aisle obstructions and faded markings from Jan 2013 through filing; photographs and testimony document the conditions. After suit was filed, defendants repainted the accessible parking and implemented new maintenance policies.
- Plaintiff asserted claims under Title III of the ADA, the Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA), the California Disabled Persons Act, and negligence; he sought injunctive relief and $4,000 in UCRA statutory damages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss (mootness for injunctive relief); Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on ADA and UCRA claims. Plaintiff later dismissed his state-law (DPA) and negligence claims.
- The court denied defendants’ dismissal/mootness argument, granted summary judgment to Lozano on the ADA and UCRA claims, awarded $4,000 statutory damages, and ordered defendants to maintain accessible parking in compliance with ADA/ADAAG.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA injunctive claim is moot after defendants repainted and adopted maintenance policies | Lozano: remedy is insufficiently permanent given prior recurrence; injunctive relief remains necessary | Defendants: voluntary remediation (repainting, new policies) moots claim because violations have ceased | Court: Not moot—defendants failed to meet heavy burden to show violations cannot reasonably recur; history and ease of backsliding weigh against mootness |
| Whether faded/absent parking markings and blocked access aisles violate Title III ADA | Lozano: faded markings and blocked aisles are architectural barriers that deny full and equal access; removal was readily achievable | Defendants: (implicit) corrected problems and argue compliance or question plaintiff's encounters | Court: Plaintiff entitled to summary judgment on ADA—evidence shows barriers that impair access and could have been remedied (defendants’ later repainting confirms achievability) |
| Entitlement to statutory damages under the Unruh Act and whether reduction applies | Lozano: violation of ADA gives rise to UCRA statutory damages; requests $4,000 minimum | Defendants: seek reduction to $1,000 under Cal. Civ. Code §55.56(f)(1)(A) based on corrective actions and CASp inspection | Court: Grants $4,000; defendants don’t qualify for reduction because CASp inspection occurred after plaintiff’s denied-access occasion and corrections followed suit filing |
| Whether defendants can defeat summary judgment by attacking plaintiff credibility or raising factual disputes | Lozano: testimony and photos prove encounters; earlier state-court credibility findings irrelevant without specific contradictory facts | Defendants: cite prior state-court decision undermining Lozano’s credibility; seek discovery/cross-examination | Court: Credibility challenge insufficient to avoid summary judgment absent specific disputed facts; summary judgment granted to plaintiff |
Key Cases Cited
- Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), 528 U.S. 167 (defendant’s voluntary cessation moots claim only if it is absolutely clear the wrongful behavior cannot reasonably be expected to recur)
- Tandy v. City of Wichita, 380 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir.) (voluntary remediation can moot injunctive ADA claims where comprehensive, permanent changes prevent recurrence)
- Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp., 816 F. Supp. 2d 831 (N.D. Cal.) (defendant’s policies may be insufficient to show no reasonable likelihood of recurrence)
- Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, P.A., 505 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir.) (court examines defendant’s motive and timing for cessation in voluntary-cessation rubric)
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir.) (ADAAG standards define objective contours of discrimination where architectural barriers impair access)
- Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir.) (elements of private Title III ADA claim)
- Wilson v. Pier 1 Imports (US), Inc., 439 F. Supp. 2d 1054 (E.D. Cal.) (examples where corrected barriers rendered injunctive claim moot)