Document text
COMPLAINT - 1 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SO. CAL. EQUAL ACCESS GROUP
Jason J. Kim (SBN 190246)
Jason Yoon (SBN 306137)
101 S. Western Ave., Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90004
Telephone: (213) 205 -6560
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CLIFTON WALKER
UNITED STATE S DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CLIFTON WALKER ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TEAM FM LLC D/B/A MARTIN
COCINA Y CANTINA; ESAUL
MARTIN ; and DOES 1 to 10 ,
Defendant s.
Case No.:
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR DENIAL
OF CIVIL RIGHTS OF A DISABLED
PERSON IN VIOLATIONS OF
1. AMERICAN S WITH DISABILITIES
ACT, 42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq. ;
2. CALIFORNIA’S UNRUH CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT ;
3. CALIFORNIA’S DISA BLED
PERSONS ACT;
4. CALIFORNIA HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE;
5. NEGLIGENCE
Plaintiff CLIFTON WALKER (“Plai ntiff”) complains of Defendants TEAM FM
LLC D/B/A MARTIN COCINA Y CANTINA; ESAUL MARTIN ; and DOES 1 to 10
(“Defendants”) and alleges as follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is a California resident with a physical disability. Plaintiff suffers
from paraplegia, chronic pain with stage 4 pressure ulcer of sacrum, right heel and right Case 2:25-cv-07488-SSC Document 1 Filed 08/12/25 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:1
COMPLAINT - 2 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
hip, and is substantially limited in his ability to walk. Plaint iff requires the use of a
wheelchair at all times when traveling in public.
2. Defendants are, or were at the time of the incident, the real property owners,
business operators, lessors and/or lessees of the real property for a restaurant
(“Business”) located at or about 162 N La Brea Ave, Inglewood , Califo rnia.
3. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
otherwise of Defendant DOES 1 through 10, and each of them, are unknown to Plaintiff,
who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will ask leave of
Court to amend this Complaint when the true names and capacities have been
ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and be lieves and, based thereon, alleges that each such
fictitiously named Defendants are responsible in some manner, and therefore, liable to
Plainti ff for the acts herein alleged.
4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, at all relevant
times, each of the Defendants was the agent, employee, or alter -ego of each of the other
Defendants, and/or was acting in concert with each of the other Defendants, and in doing
the things alleged herein was acting with the knowledge and consent of the other
Defendants and within the course and scope of such agency or employment relationship.
5. Whenever and wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any act or
failure to act by a defendant or Defendants, such allegations and references shall also be
deemed to mean the acts and failures to act of each Defendant acting individually, jointly
and severally.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. The Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 USC §§ 1331 and
1343 for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (42 USC §12101, et
seq.).
7. Pursuant to pendant jurisdiction, attendant and related causes of action,
arising from the same nucleus of operating facts, are also brought under California law, Case 2:25-cv-07488-SSC Document 1 Filed 08/12/25 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:2
COMPLAINT - 3 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
including, but not limited to, violations of California Civil Code §§51, 51.5, 52(a), 52.1,
54, 54., 54.3 and 55.
8. Plaintiff’s claims are authorized by 28 USC §§ 2201 and 2202.
9. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 USC §1391(b). The real
property which is the subject of this action is located in this district, Los Angeles County,
California, and that all actions complained of herein take place in this district.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
10. In or about May of 2025 , Plaintiff went to the Business.
11. The Business is a restaurant business establishment, open to the public, and
is a place of public accommodation that affects commerce through its operation.
12. While attempting to enter the Business during each visit, Plaintiff personally
encountered a number of barriers that interfered with his ability to use and enjoy the
goods, services, privileges, and accommodations offered at the Business.
13. To the extent of Plaintiff’s personal knowledge, the barriers at the Business
included, but were not limited to, the following:
a. Defendants failed to maintain accessibility for persons with
disabilities to comply with the federal and state standards . Defendants
failed to provide at least one accessible entrance as required as the
ramp that runs up to the entrance did not have level landing and had a
slope that was too steep .
14. These barriers and conditions denied Plaintiff the full and equal access to the
Business and caused Plaintiff difficulty and frustration. Plaintiff wishes to return and
patronize the Business ; however, Plaintiff is deterred from visiting the Business because
his knowledge of these violations prevents him from returning until the barriers are
removed.
15. Based on the violations, Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that
there are additional barriers to accessibility at the Business after further site inspection. Case 2:25-cv-07488-SSC Document 1 Filed 08/12/25 Page 3 of 10 Page ID #:3
COMPLAINT - 4 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff seeks to have all barriers related to his disability remedied. See Doran v. 7 -
Eleven , Inc. 524 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2008).
16. In addition, Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that Defendants
knew that particular barriers render the Business inaccessible, violate state and federal
law, and interfere with access for the physically disabled.
17. At all relevant times, Defendants had and still have control and dominion
over the conditions at this location and had and still have the financial resources to
remove these barriers without much difficulty or expenses to make the Business
accessible to th e physically disabled in compliance with ADDAG and Title 24
regulations. Defendants have not removed such barriers and have not modified the
Business to conform to accessibility regulations.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990
18. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations in all prior
paragraphs in this complaint.
19. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), no individual
shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of
the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of
public accommodation by any person who owns, leases, or leases to, or operates a place
of public accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).
20. Discrimination, inter alia , includes:
a. A failure to make reasonable modification in policies, practices, or
procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations
to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that
making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of
such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii). Case 2:25-cv-07488-SSC Document 1 Filed 08/12/25 Page 4 of 10 Page ID #:4
COMPLAINT - 5 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
b. A failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no
individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or
otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the
absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless the entity can
demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the
nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or
accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden. 42
U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii).
c. A failure to remove architectural barriers, and communication barriers
that are structural in nature, in existing facilities, and transportation
barriers in existing vehicles and rail passenger cars used by an
establishment for transporting individuals (no t including barriers that
can only be removed through the retrofitting of vehicles or rail
passenger cars by the installation of a hydraulic or other lift), where
such removal is readily achievable. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).
d. A failure to make alterations in such a manner that, to the maximum
extent feasible, the altered portions of the facility are readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including
individuals who use wheelchairs or to ensure that, to the maximum
extent feasible, the path of travel to the altered area and the
bathrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the altered
area, are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with
disabilities where such alterations to the path or travel or the
bathrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the altered area
are not disproportionate to the overall alterations in terms of cost and
scope. 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2).
21. At least one accessible route shall connect accessible building, facilities,
elements, and spaces that are on the same site. 1991 ADA Standards § 4.3.2. A public Case 2:25-cv-07488-SSC Document 1 Filed 08/12/25 Page 5 of 10 Page ID #:5
COMPLAINT - 6 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
accommodation shall maintain in operable working condition those features of facilities
and equipment that are required to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with
disabilities by the Act or this part. 28 C.F.R. 35.211(a).
22. Here, Defendants failed to provide at least one accessible entrance to the
Business as the ramp that runs up to the entrance did not have level landing and had a
slope that was too steep .
23. A public accommodation shall maintain in operable working condition those
features of facilities and equipment that are required to be readily accessible to and usable
by persons with disabilities by the Act or this part. 28 C.F.R. 35.211(a).
24. By failing to maintain the facility to be readily accessible and usable by
Plaintiff, Defendants are in violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA and its related
regulations.
25. The Business has denied and continues to deny full and equal access to
Plaintiff and to other people with disabilities. Plaintiff has been and will continue to be
discriminated against due to the lack of accessible facilities, and therefore, seeks
injunct ive relief to alter facilities to make such facilities readily accessible to and usable
by individuals with disabilities.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
26. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations in all prior
paragraphs in this complaint.
27. California Civil Code § 51 states, “All persons within the jurisdiction of this
state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color , religion, ancestry,
national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual
orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full
and equal accommodations , advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business
establishments of every kind whatsoever.” Case 2:25-cv-07488-SSC Document 1 Filed 08/12/25 Page 6 of 10 Page ID #:6
COMPLAINT - 7 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28. California Civil Code § 52 states, “Whoever denies, aids or incites a denial,
or make any discrimination or distinction contrary to Section 51, 515, or 51.6, is liable
for each and every offense for the actual damages, and any amount that may be
determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the
amount of actual da mage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000) and any
attorney’s fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by a ny
person denied the rights provided in Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6.
29. California Civil Code § 51(f) specifies, “a violation of the right of any
individual under federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101 -336)
shall also constitute a violation of this section.”
30. The actions and omissions of Defendants alleged herein constitute a denial
of full and equal accommodation , advantages, facilities , privileges, or services by
physically disabled persons within the meaning of California Civil Code §§ 51 and 52.
Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of California Civil Code §§
51 and 52.
31. The violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act caused Plaintiff to experience
difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment . The Defendants are also liable for statutory
damages as specified in California Civil Code §55.56(a) -(c).
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA DISABLED PERSONS ACT
32. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations in all prior
paragraphs in this complaint.
33. California Civil Code § 54.1(a) states, “Individuals with disabilities shall be
entitled to full and equal access, as other members of the general public, to
accommodations , advantages, facilities, medical facilities , including hospitals, clinics,
and physicians’ offices, and privileges of all common carriers, airplanes, motor vehicles,
railroad trains, motorbuses, streetcars, boats, or any other public conveyances or modes
of transportation (whether private, public, franchised, licensed, contracted, or otherwise Case 2:25-cv-07488-SSC Document 1 Filed 08/12/25 Page 7 of 10 Page ID #:7
COMPLAINT - 8 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
provided), telephone facilities, adoption agencies, private schools, hotels, loading places,
places of public accommodations , amusement, or resort, and other places in which the
general public is invited, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by
law, or state or federal regulation, and applicable alike to all persons.
34. California Civil Code § 54.3(a) states, “ Any person or persons, firm or
corporation who denies or interferes with admittance to or enjoyment of public facilities
as specified in Sections 54 and 54.1 or otherwise interferes with the rights of an
individual with a disability under Sections 54, 54.1 and 54.2 is liable for each offense for
the actual damages, and any amount as may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting
without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual da mages but in no
case less than one thousand dollars ($1 ,000) and any attorney’s fees that may be
determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied t he rights
provided in Section 54 , 54.1, and 54.2.
35. California Civil Code § 5 4(d) specifies, “ a violation of the right of an
individual under Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101 -336) also
constitute a violati on of this section, and nothing in this section shall be construed to limit
the access of any person in violation of that act.
36. The actions and omissions of Defendants alleged herein constitute a denial
of full and equal accommodation , advantages, and facilities by physically disabled
persons within the meaning of California Civ il Code § 54. Defendants have
discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of California Civil Code § 54.
37. The violations of the California Disabled Persons Act caused Plaintiff to
exper ience difficulty, discomfort, and embarrassment . The Defendants are also liable for
statutory damages as specified in California Civil Code §55.56(a) -(c).
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
CALIFORNIA HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 19955, et seq.
38. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations in all prior
paragraphs in this complaint. Case 2:25-cv-07488-SSC Document 1 Filed 08/12/25 Page 8 of 10 Page ID #:8
COMPLAINT - 9 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
39. Plaintiff and other similar physically disabled persons who require the use of
a wheelchair are unable to use public facilities on a “full and equal” basis unless each
such facility is in compliance with the provisions of California Health & Safety Code §
19955 et seq. Plaintiff is a member of the public whose rights are protected by the
provisions of California Health & Safety C ode § 19955 et seq.
40. The purpose of California Health & Safety Code § 1995 et seq. is to ensure
that public accommodations or facilities constructed in this state with private funds
adhere to the provisions of Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 4450) of Division 5 of
Title 1 of the Government Code. The code relating to such public accommodations also
require that “when sanitary facilities are made available for the public, clients, or
employees in these stations , centers, or buildings, they shall be made available for
persons with disabilities.
41. Title II of the ADA holds as a “general rule” that no individual shall be
discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of goods
(or use), services, facilities, privileges, and accommodations offered by any person who
owns, operates, or leases a place of public accommodation . 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).
Further, each and every violation of the ADA also constitutes a separate and distinct
violation of California Civil Code §§ 54(c) and 54.1(d), thus independently justifying an
award of damages and injunctive relief pursuant to California law, including but not
limited to Civil Code § 54.3 and Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE
42. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations in all prior
paragraphs in this complaint.
43. Defendants have a general duty and a duty under the ADA, Unruh Civil
Rights Act and California Disabled Persons Act to provide safe and accessible facilities
to the Plaintiff. Case 2:25-cv-07488-SSC Document 1 Filed 08/12/25 Page 9 of 10 Page ID #:9
COMPLAINT - 10 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
44. Defendants breached their duty of care by violating the provisions of ADA,
Unruh Civil Rights Act and California Disabled Persons Act.
45. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent conduct, Plaintiff
has suffered damages .
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for relief and judgment against
Defendants as follows:
1. For preliminary and permanent injunction directing Defendants to comply
with the Americans with Disability Act and the Un ruh Civil Rights Act;
2. Award of all appropriate damages, including but not limited to statutory
damages, general damages and treble damages in amounts, according to proof;
3. Award of all reasonable restitution for Defendants’ unfair competition
practices;
4. Reasonable attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit in this
action;
5. Prejudgment interest pursuant to California Civil Code § 3291; and
6. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby
demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated: August 12, 2025 SO. CAL. EQUAL ACCESS GROUP
By: _/s/ Jason J. Kim _____ ______
Jason J. Kim , Esq.
Attorney s for Plaintiff Case 2:25-cv-07488-SSC Document 1 Filed 08/12/25 Page 10 of 10 Page ID #:10