Soriano v. Jai Santoshi Ma II LLC

Filing 18

DEFAULT JUDGMENT in favor of Kathy Soriano against Jai Santoshi Ma II LLC Signed by Deputy Clerk on 11/6/2017. (LMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
CASE NO.: 8:17-cv-01385-EAK-AEP
KATHY SORIANO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JAI SANTOSHI MA II LLC,
Defendant.
___________________________/
FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment After
Default, and the Court having considered the motion, having reviewed the pleadings, papers and
supporting declaration filed herein, being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is hereby
FOUND, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

and 1343, for Plaintiff’s claims arising under 28 U.S.C. §12181, et seq., based upon Defendant’s
violation of Title III of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, et seq.
2.

Defendant is the owner, operator, lessor and/or lessee of the real property and

improvements which are the subject of this action (hereinafter, the “Facility”).
3.

Defendant has discriminated against the Plaintiff, who is an individual with a

disability, by denying full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages
and accommodations of the subject Facility as provided by 42 U.S.C. §§12182, et seq., and by failing
to remove architectural barriers and thereby providing Plaintiff appropriate access to the subject
Facility, as required by 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). Specifically, the Court finds that the alleged
ADA violations identified in the Complaint must be remediated by Defendant in compliance with

the ADA 2010 Standards:
a. There are an insufficient amount of accessible parking spaces. 2010 Standards
sections 208.2 and 502 and Table 208.2.
b. Parking spaces designated as accessible are not, in fact, accessible. 2010 Standards
sections 208 and 502.
c. The parking spaces designated as accessible lack clear and level access aisles. 2010
Standards section 502.3 and 502.4.
d. There is not an accessible route throughout the site and facility. 2010 Standards
sections 206 and 402.
e. There is not a properly designed and sloped ramp from the parking area to the
Facility. 2010 Standards sections 208, 405 and 406.
f. There are doors that are inaccessible. 2010 Standards sections 206.5 and 404.
g. Counters where customer service and/or transactions occur are inaccessible. 2010
Standards sections 227 and 904.
h. Restrooms at the Facility are not accessible. 2010 Standards.
i.

There are designated accessible parking spaces that have faded paint and have not
been maintained, in violation of Section 36.211 of the 2010 Standards, which remedy
is readily achievable.

j.

The designated accessible parking spaces are not located on the shortest accessible
route closest to the accessible entrance they serve, in violation of Section 208.3.1 of
the 2010 Standards, which remedy is readily achievable.

k. There are designated accessible parking spaces that do not have the required signage
identifying them as accessible, in violation of Section 216.5, 502.6 and 703.7.2.1 of
the 2010 Standards, whose remedy is readily achievable.
l.

The parking facility does not provide the required “Van Accessible” designation
signage identifying one of the accessible parking spaces as “Van” accessible, in
violation of Section 208.2.4 and 502.6 of the 2010 Standards, which remedy is readily
achievable.

m. The parking facility does not provide a designated accessible “Van” parking space as
required, violating Section 502.2 of the 2010 Standards, which remedy is readily
achievable.

2

n. There are designated accessible parking spaces that do not provide a required 60”
marked access aisle adjacent to the spaces, violating Section 502.3 of the 2010
Standards, which remedy is readily achievable.
o. The designated accessible parking spaces and access aisles have an uneven surface
violating Section 502.4 of the 2010 Standards, which remedy is readily achievable.
p. There are designated accessible parking spaces that do not lead to an accessible route
due to the built up curb ramp projecting into the spaces, violating Sections 502.3 and
406.5 of the 2010 Standards, which remedy is readily achievable.
q. The passenger loading zone does not provide a 60” marked access aisle adjacent to
the vehicle pull-up space, and is not connected to an accessible route due to the
vertical change in level of the curb, violating Section 503.3 of the 2010 Standards,
which remedy is readily achievable.
r. The facility does not maintain the elements that are required to be readily accessible
and useable by persons with disabilities in violation of Section 36.211 of the
ADAAG.
s. There is not at least one accessible route from some of the designated accessible
parking spaces to the facility entrance they serve, due to the built up curb ramps
projecting into the spaces, violating Section 206.2.1 and 406.5 of the 2010
Standards, which remedy is readily achievable.
t. There is not continuous path of travel connecting all essential elements of the
facility, violating Section 206.2.2 of the 2010 Standards, which remedy is readily
achievable.
u. There are built up curb ramps that have surface slopes exceeding the maximum
allowance of 1:12, violating Section 405.2 0f the 2010 Standards, which remedy is
readily achievable.
v. There are built up curb ramps that have an uneven surface, as well as, a change in
level at the terminus of the ramp, in violation of Sections 303.3 and 405.4 of the
2010 Standards, which remedy is readily achievable.
w. There are built up curb ramps that have side flares steeper than maximum allowance
of 1:10, violating Section 406.3 of the 2010 Standards, which remedy is readily
achievable.
x. The facility’s exterior stairway do not provide compliant handrail extensions at both
the top and bottom as required, in violation of Section 504.6of the 2010 Standards,
which remedy is readily achievable.

3

y. There are entrances to the facility that do not provide compliant directional and
informational signage, nor the International Symbol of Accessibility, violating
Sections 216.6 and 703.7.2.1 of the 2010 Standards, which remedy is readily
achievable.
z. There are entrance doors at this facility that have a change in level at the threshold
exceeding the maximum allowance of ½”, violating Section 404.2.5 of the 2010
Standards, which remedy is readily achievable.
aa. There are entrance doors at this facility that have door hardware that require tight
grasping and pinching to operate, violating Section 404.2.7 of the 2010 Standards,
which remedy is readily achievable.
bb. This facility does not provide at least 60% of its entrances to be accessible as
required by Section 206.4.1 and 404 of the 2010 Standards, which remedy is readily
achievable, which remedy is remedy is readily achievable.
cc. The customer service counter exceeds the maximum height allowance of 36” and
does not provide an alternate counter, violating Sections 904.4.1 and 904.4.2 of the
2010 Standards, which remedy is readily achievable.
dd. The outdoor swimming pool area does not provide at least 5% of the seating spaces
at the dining surfaces with compliant knee and toe clearance as required, violating
Section 902.2 of the 2010 Standards, which remedy is readily achievable.
ee. The entry gate to the swimming pool does not provide the required 18” of latch side
maneuvering clearance, violating Section 404.2.4 of the 2010 ADA Standards, which
remedy is readily achievable.
ff. The entry gate to the swimming pool has gate hardware that requires tight grasping,
pinching and twisting of the wrist and is not provided on both sides as required,
violating Sections 309.4 and 404.2.7 of the 2010 Standards, which remedy is readily
achievable.
gg. The swimming pool lift provided is not in working condition and ready for use
during all of the hours of pool operation as required in Section 36.211 and the ADA
Requirements for accessible Pools updated May 24, 2012, which remedy is readily
achievable.
hh. This facility does not provide a guest room with a compliant roll-in shower, violating
Sections 806.2.4 and 224.2 of the 2010 Standards, which remedy is readily achievable.
4.

Defendant shall have three (3) months from the date that this Order is entered to

complete the remediation to the Facility required hereby. Upon completion, Defendant shall file a
4

verified certificate of completion with the Court acknowledging that all work has been completed.
The time period for completion by Defendant shall be subject to acts of God, force majeure, or events
beyond the control of Defendant such as inability to obtain building or zoning permits, failure of the
city/ county inspectors to make inspections, contractor defaults or work stoppages. In the event of
such unforeseen circumstances, the time period for completion of the barrier removal, alterations
and modifications provided in Paragraph 1 will be extended by the number of days reasonably
attributable to such delay-causing event as long as Defendant immediately files a motion with the
Court for an extension of time, before the expiration of the deadline to comply, and provides
written notice to Plaintiff, which includes the specific reasons for the delay, the estimated time for
completion and Defendant makes a good faith effort to effect implementation as soon as reasonably
possible thereafter.
5.

The Court finds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party, and that Plaintiff is therefore

entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs from Defendant,
and this Court retains jurisdiction for the determination and award thereof.
ORDERED this 6th day of November, 2017.
_s/L.DeJesus____________________________
Deputy Clerk

cc:

Counsel of Record
Jai Santoshi MA II LLC
c/o its registered agent: Kumar Rajesh
198 W. Hillsborough Avenue
Tampa, Florida 33605

5