Robert Sanchez v. Tom's Automotive Service Center et al
ORDER RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Upon Stipulation 31 , ORDER: There is no readily achievable means for bringing this Site into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Architectural Guidelines, or the California Building Code. Defendant TOM'S AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE CENTER INC., and JOSEPH VIVILACQUA shall pay $1,500, to compensate Plaintiff for damages, fees and costs purportedly incurred as a result of the incident, within 30 days of the entry of this Order. Each party shall bear its own costs and expenses, including, without limitation, attorneys' fees. The action is dismissed with prejudice. (gk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: CV 17-6812-DMG (SSMx)
ORDER RE DISMISSAL OF
ACTION AND ENTRY OF
TOM'S AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE
CENTER aka TOM'S TIRE PER15 FORMANCE CENTER, a business;
TOM'S DISCOUNT TIRE CENTER,
16 INC., a corporation; JOSEPH
VIVILACQUA, an individual,
The Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and the subject matter of
The Parties agree to the entry of this Final Order, without the
adjudication of the remaining issues of fact or law pleaded in the Complaint, to
settle and resolve all matters in dispute arising from the conduct alleged in the
Complaint to the date this Final Order is entered;
Defendants TOM'S AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE CENTER INC., and
JOSEPH VIVILACQUA neither admit nor deny any of allegations made in
Complaint, except as stated in this Final Order. For purposes of this Final Order,
Defendants admit the facts necessary to establish the Court’s jurisdiction over them
and the subject matter of this action;
The Parties stipulate that there is no readily achievable means of
altering the Site without compromising the safety of wheelchair-bound patrons.
Said conclusion is based on a California Access Specialist's Report, the relevant
portion of which is attached and marked as Exhibit A.
There is no readily achievable means for bringing this Site into
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Architectural Guidelines, or the
California Building Code;
Defendant TOM'S AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE CENTER INC., and
JOSEPH VIVILACQUA shall pay $1,500 (One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars),
to compensate Plaintiff for damages, fees and costs purportedly incurred as a result
of the incident, within 30 days of the entry of this Order;
Each party shall bear its own costs and expenses, including, without
limitation, attorneys’ fees;
The Parties waive service under Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and waive all rights to seek judicial review or otherwise challenge
or contest the validity of this Final Order;
The above-captioned action is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 6, 2018
DOLLY M. GEE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Site Accessibility Evaluation
Americans with Disabilities Act
Title 24 And Part 2 - California Building Code
Tom's Automotive Service
4401 E Anaheim St
Long Beach, CA 90804
(951) 526 - 7960
Inspection Date: 10/05/2017
Inspector: Jason James
Powered by BlueDAG
Tom's Automotive Service Center - 4401 E Anaheim St Long Beach, CA 90804
There are no customer parking stalls.
There is not ample room in the vehicle storage lot to provide parking stalls, much less a van
accessible parking stall, and still provide a safe pedestrian route or fire department access.
This configuration was approved by the local jurisdiction having authority in 2017 without the
requirement of public parking.
2016 CBC 11B Section 11B-208.2
Parking spaces complying with Section 11 B-502 shall be provided in accordance with Table 11B-208.2
except as required by Sections 11 B-208.2.1, 11 B-208.2.2, and 11B-208.2.3. Where more than one parking
facilityi s providedo n a site, the numbero f accessibles paces provided on the site shall be calculated
according to the number of spaces required for each parking facility.
2016 CBC 11B Section: 11B-208.2
(951) 526 - 7960
Powered by BlueDAG
4 of 18
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?