Nehemiah Kong v. Leonardo M. Lopez et al

Filing 72

JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that final judgment in this action in favor of Defendants be entered as follows: As to Plaintiff's claim for violation of Americans with Disabil ities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.: Judgment is entered against Plaintiff Nehemiah Kong and in favor of Defendants Leonardo M. Lopez, Iris A. Lopez, and Fermax, Inc. As to Plaintiff's claim for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code 51-53: Judgment is entered against Plaintiff Nehemiah Kong and in favor of Defendants Leonardo M. Lopez, Iris A. Lopez, and Fermax, Inc. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (iv)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NEHEMIAH KONG,

Case No. 2:18-cv-2538-MWF (GJSx)

12

Plaintiff,

The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald,
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16

vs.
JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL
LEONARDO M. LOPEZ, IRIS A.
LOPEZ, and FERMAX INC., a
California corporation,

17
18

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

1

This action came on regularly for jury trial between February 18 and

2

February 20, 2020, in Courtroom 5A of this United States District Court. Plaintiff

3

Nehemiah Kong was represented by James R. Boyd and Dennis J. Price II of Potter

4

Handy, LLP (Center for Disability Access). Defendants Leonardo M. Lopez, Iris

5

A. Lopez, and Fermax, Inc. were represented by Charles L. Murray III of Charles

6

Murray Law Offices.

7

A jury of eight persons was regularly empaneled and sworn. Witnesses were

8

sworn and testified and exhibits were admitted into evidence. After hearing the

9

evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and

10

the cause was submitted to the jury. The jury deliberated and thereafter returned a

11

verdict as follows:

12
13

Question 1: Did the Restaurant present an architectural barrier by failing to

14

offer a van-accessible parking space on February 9, 2018? (The meaning of “van-

15

accessible parking space” is defined in Instruction No. 13.)

16
17
18
19

Yes __X_

No ____

If you answered “Yes”, please proceed to Question 2. If you answered “No”,
please skip the remaining questions, sign and date the form on page 3.

20
21
22
23

Question 2: Did the Plaintiff personally encounter the lack of a vanaccessible parking space on February 9, 2018?

24
25
26

Yes ____

No _ X__

Please proceed to Question 3.

27
28
2

1

Question 3: Did the Plaintiff have personal knowledge of the lack of a van-

2

accessible parking space on February 9, 2018 and was thereby deterred from

3

visiting or patronizing the Restaurant on February 9, 2018?

4
5
6
7
8

Yes ____

No _ X__

If you answered “Yes” to either Question 2 or 3, please proceed to Question 4. If
you answered “No” to both Questions 2 and 3, please skip to the remaining
questions, sign and date the form on page 3.

9
10
11
12

Question 4: Did the Plaintiff prove that he intends to return to the
Restaurant?

13
14
15

Yes ____

No ____

Please proceed to Question 5.

16
17

Question 5: Did the Plaintiff experience difficulty, discomfort, or

18

embarrassment due to encountering the lack of a van-accessible parking space?

19
20
21

Yes ____

No ____

Please proceed to Question 6.

22
23

Question 6: Did the Defendants prove that providing a van-accessible

24

parking space is not readily achievable? (The meaning of “readily achievable” is

25

defined in Instruction No. 15).

26
27

Yes ____

No ____

28
3

1

Now, therefore, pursuant to Rules 54 and 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil

2

Procedure, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that

3

final judgment in this action in favor of Defendants be entered as follows:

4

1. As to Plaintiff’s claim for violation of Americans with Disabilities Act of

5

1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.: Judgment is entered against Plaintiff

6

Nehemiah Kong and in favor of Defendants Leonardo M. Lopez, Iris A.

7

Lopez, and Fermax, Inc.

8

2. As to Plaintiff’s claim for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal.

9

Civ. Code §§ 51-53: Judgment is entered against Plaintiff Nehemiah

10

Kong and in favor of Defendants Leonardo M. Lopez, Iris A. Lopez, and

11

Fermax, Inc.

12
13

3. As the prevailing party, Defendants may file an application to recover
their reasonable costs.

14
15
16

Dated: March 4, 2020

______________________________
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4