Ascencio et al v. ADRU Corp.

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING 15 MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Hon. William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

KARLA ASCENCIO and JUDITH
ALLEN,
No. C 12-04884 WHA
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15
16

v.
ORDER ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

ADRU CORPORATION, a California
corporation doing business as Burger
King #15775,
Defendant.
/

17
18

The undersigned judge has reviewed the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge

19

Laurel Beeler (Dkt. No. 15). No objection to the report and recommendation was filed. The

20

order therefore ACCEPTS and ADOPTS in full the findings therein. Accordingly, judgment shall

21

be entered separately for plaintiff in the amount of $20,432, consisting of the following parts:

22

(1) $8,000 in statutory damages; (2) $11,864 in attorney’s fees; and (3) $568 in costs. In

23

addition, the following permanent injunction is hereby ENTERED against defendant:

24
25
26
27
28

Defendant ADRU Corporation, a California corporation doing
business as Burger King franchise # 15775, must permit
service dogs to accompany people with disabilities in all areas
of the facility where the public is normally allowed to go,
unless the dog is creating a disturbance and the animal’s
handler does not take effective action to control it, or the dog is
not housebroken. When it is not obvious what service an
animal provides, staff may ask only two questions: (1) is the
dog a service animal required because of a disability; and (2)
what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff
cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical
documentation, require a special identification card or training

1

documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its
ability to perform the work or task.

2
For a district court’s contempt power to apply to this injunction, defendant must “receive
3
actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise.” FRCP 65(d)(2). Plaintiffs are thus
4
instructed to provide proper service of this order to defendant by no later than JANUARY 23,
5
2014. Plaintiffs shall also file a copy of the proof of service.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
Dated: January 6, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2