Lobato v. Gomez, et al.

Filing 100

ORDER re the Court's proposed jury document signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 6/23/2017. (Attachments: # 1 jury instructions, # 2 statement of case, # 3 verdict form)(Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
RACHEL LOBATO,

Case No. 1:15-cv-00686-EPG

11
Plaintiff,
12

DRAFT SPECIAL VERDICT
FORM

v.

13 EVERARDO O. GOMEZ,
individually and doing business as
14 El Sarape Restaurant, DOLORES B. GOMEZ,
individually and doing business as
15 El Sarape Restaurant,
16

Defendants.

17
18

We, the jury, in the above-entitled action, find the following special verdict on the

19 requests presented to us.
20
21
22
23
24
25
1

1
2
3
4
5

QUESTION NO. 1:
Has Plaintiff proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff is disabled
within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?
YES _______

NO ________

(If YES, please answer question 2. If NO, enter verdict in favor of Defendants on
all claims.)

6
7
8
9

QUESTION NO. 2:
Has Plaintiff proven by a preponderance of the evidence that architectural barriers
exist or existed in the restaurant owned and operated by the Defendants that would have

10 prevented Plaintiff from the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
11 privileges, advantages, or accommodations of the restaurant?
12

YES _______

NO ________

(If YES, please answer question 3. If NO, enter verdict in favor of Defendants on
13

all claims.)

14
15 QUESTION NO. 3:
16

Has Plaintiff proven by a preponderance of the evidence that removal of the

17 architectural barriers at the restaurant is readily achievable?
18
19

YES _______

NO ________

(If YES, please answer question 4. If NO, enter verdict in favor of Defendants on
all claims.)

20
21
22
23
24
25
2

1

QUESTION NO. 4:

2
3

Has Defendant proven by a preponderance of the evidence that removal of the
architectural barriers at the restaurant is not readily achievable?
YES _______

4

NO ________

(If NO, enter verdict in favor of Plaintiff on Claim 1 and please answer question 5.

5

If YES, enter verdict in favor of Defendants on all claims.)
6
7

QUESTION NO. 5:

8
9

Has Plaintiff proven by a preponderance of the evidence that her encounter with
the barrier caused her any difficulty, discomfort or embarrassment?

10

YES _______

11

(If YES, enter verdict in favor of Plaintiff on Claim 2. If NO, enter verdict in

12
13
14

NO ________

favor of Defendants on Claim 2.)

VERDICT
On Claim 1, violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), we find in favor of

15 (choose one):
16

_______ Plaintiff Rachel Lobato

17

_______ Defendants Everardo O. Gomez and Dolores B. Gomez.

18
19

On Claim 2, violation of California’s Unruh Act, we find in favor of (choose one):
_______ Plaintiff Rachel Lobato

20

_______ Defendants Everardo O. Gomez and Dolores B. Gomez.

21
22 On Claim 3, violation of California Health and Safety Code , we find in favor of (choose
23 one):
24
25

_______ Plaintiff Rachel Lobato
_______ Defendants Everardo O. Gomez and Dolores B. Gomez.
3

1
2

Please date and sign this form.

3

Dated:

4

______________________________
Foreperson

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4