The Reddy Law Firm LLC

The Reddy Law Firm LLC, is an ADA plaintiff law firm in California known for initiating physical access barrier claims against mostly small business and commercial property owners. Based in Alameda, CA, they have filed accessibility lawsuits under the ADA and Unruh Act against business and property owners in both state and federal court. The Reddy Law Firm has represented some of the most prolific ADA plaintiffs in California, including Brian Whitaker and Orlando Garcia.

Website: Thereddylaw.com

Address: 103 Bay Park Terrace, Alameda, CA 94502

Phone: (646) 468-4257

Attorneys: Prathima Reddy Price, Aaina Duggal

Known Plaintiffs: Orlando Garcia, Brian Whitaker

 

Prathima Reddy Price – The Reddy Law Firm LLC – Example Lawsuit

The following is an example lawsuit filed by serial filer Brian Whitaker. Whitaker is represented by attorney Prathima Price. The Reddy Law Firm LLC is know for filing lawsuites under the American Disabilities Act.

The Reddy Law Firm LLC
Prathima Price, Esq., SBN 321378
Mail: 103 Bay Park Terrace, Alameda, CA 94502
(858) 375-7385; (510) 217-3541 fax
[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

 

Brian Whitaker

Plaintiff,

v.

XXXXXXX

Defendant.

PARTIES:

1. Plaintiff is a California resident with physical disabilities and a member of a protected class of persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act. He is substantially limited in his ability to walk. He suffers from a C-4 spinal cord injury. He is a quadriplegic. He uses a wheelchair for mobility.

2. Defendant XXXXXXX, under that certain Declaration of Trust named the Amended and Restated XXXXXXX, dated xxxxxx, owned the real property located at or about XXXXXXX, in XXXXXXX.

3. Defendant XXXXXXX, dated XXXXXXX, owns the real property located at or about XXXXXXX currently.

4. Defendant XXXXXXX owned XXXXXXX located at or about XXXXXXX.

5. Defendant XXXXXXX owns XXXXXXX located at or XXXXXXX, currently

6. Plaintiff does not know the true names of Defendants, their business capacities, their ownership connection to the property and business, or their relative responsibilities in causing the access violations herein complained of, and alleges a joint venture and common enterprise by all such Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the Defendants herein is responsible in some capacity for the events herein alleged, or is a necessary party for obtaining appropriate relief. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend when the true names, capacities, connections, and responsibilities of the Defendants are ascertained.

Jurisdiction:

7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action as a court of general jurisdiction. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they conduct substantial business in the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

8. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendants conduct business in this County.
9. Unlimited jurisdiction is proper because Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction ordering compliance with state and federal accessibility laws pursuant to the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Factual Allegations:

10. Plaintiff went to XXXXXXX on XXXXXXX, with the intention to avail himself of its goods, services, privileges, or advantages (“Benefits”) motivated in part to determine if the Defendants comply with the disability access laws.

11. XXXXXXX is a facility open to the public, a place of public accommodation, and a business establishment.
12. Unfortunately, on the date of Plaintiff’s visit, the facility failed to comply with ADA Standards as it relates to wheelchair users like the Plaintiff.
13. Plaintiff observed or encountered the following non-compliant conditions: Feature: Paths of travel, Compliance issue: There were unramped steps at the entrance of XXXXXXX. As a result, a friend of the Plaintiff went inside and completed the transaction for Plaintiff. Sales counters: The sales counter was too high. There was no counter that was 36 inches or less in height.

14. The above features are all available Benefits offered to customers but not offered in conformance with the ADA standard as they relate to the Plaintiff’s disability.
15. The failure to provide accessible paths of travel denied Plaintiff full and equal access because the Plaintiff was not able to navigate his wheelchair without difficulty.

16. The failure to provide accessible sales counters denied Plaintiff full and equal access because the Plaintiff would not be able to conduct his transaction without difficulty.

17. Plaintiff believes that there are other elements of the above features that likely fail to comply with the ADA Standards and seeks to have fully compliant Benefits for 1 Cites to the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design unless otherwise indicated. Wheelchair users.

18. On information and belief, the above conditions currently exist.
19. These above barriers relate to and impact the Plaintiff’s disability. Plaintiff personally encountered these barriers.

20. As a wheelchair user, Plaintiff benefits from and is entitled to use wheelchair accessible facilities. The above inaccessible conditions deny the Plaintiff full and equal access.

21. The Defendants have failed to maintain in working and useable conditions those features required to provide ready access to persons with disabilities.

22. All of the barriers identified above are easily removed without much difficulty or expense. They are the types of barriers identified by the Department of Justice for attention and these barriers are readily achievable to remove. However, should full compliance not be readily achievable, there are numerous alternative accommodations that could be made to provide a greater level of access than presently exists.

23. Given the obvious and blatant nature of the barriers and violations alleged herein, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to take the necessary steps to ensure removal of non-compliant architectural barriers as required by 42 U.S.C. § 12182(2)(A)(iv) and on information and belief, alleges that there are other violations and barriers on the site that relate to his disability. Plaintiff will amend the complaint to provide proper notice regarding the scope of this lawsuit once he conducts a site inspection. Plaintiff seeks to have all barriers related to his disability remedied. See Doran v. 7-Eleven, 524 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that once a plaintiff encounters one barrier at a site, he can sue to have all barriers that relate to his disability removed regardless of whether he personally encountered them).

24. As the ADA has existed since 1990, and the facility is still non-compliant, Plaintiff alleges the above conditions are the result of either a policy failure or systematic negligence such that only regular audits of the facility architecture and policies will ensure future compliance.

25. Plaintiff is currently deterred from returning to XXXXXXX due to knowledge of the existing barriers and uncertainty about the existence of yet other barriers on the site. If the barriers are not removed, the Plaintiff will face unlawful and discriminatory barriers again. Plaintiff will return to XXXXXXX after the conclusion of the case to avail himself of its benefits and to confirm compliance with the disability access laws once it is represented to him that XXXXXXX and its facilities are accessible.

CCP § 425.50 Compliance Statements:

26. Compliance testing is recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court and civil rights advocates as a necessary method of enforcing civil rights laws.

27. Pursuant to CCP § 425.50(a)(4)(i) Plaintiff states they qualify as a high-frequency litigant as defined by CCP § 425.55. Plaintiff is an ADA advocate and tester as that term is understood and protected under federal law. Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982); C.R. Educ. & Enf’t Ctr. v. Hosp. Properties Tr., 867 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2017).

28. Pursuant to CCP § 425.50(a)(4)(ii), Plaintiff states in the year preceding the drafting of this complaint they filed approximately 677 lawsuits alleging violations of construction-related accessibility standards.

29. Pursuant to CCP § 425.50(a)(4)(iii), Plaintiff states on the date alleged above, Plaintiff was in the area around the business engaged, at least in part, in constitutionally protected tester activities visiting businesses in the same manner as a potential customer to confirm their compliance with state and federal laws. Plaintiff’s encounter with the above listed conditions resulted in a denial of full and equal access under the ADA.

30. Pursuant to CCP § 425.50(a)(4)(iv), Plaintiff states Plaintiff visited the subject business for the purpose of testing facility compliance with accessibility laws with the intention to use the Benefits of the facility in the same manner as a customer.

31. At the conclusion of this suit and after being informed that the barriers complained of have been removed, in furtherance of Plaintiff’s tester motivations, Plaintiff intends to return to the business to confirm accessibility of the above conditions.

l. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (On behalf of Plaintiff and against all Defendants.) (Cal. Civ. Code § 51-53.)

32. Plaintiff re-pleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth again herein, the allegations contained in all prior paragraphs of this complaint.
33. Under the ADA, it is an act of discrimination to fail to ensure that the privileges, advantages, accommodations, facilities, goods, and services of any place of public accommodation are offered on a full and equal basis by anyone who owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Discrimination is defined, inter alia, as follows:

1. A failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the accommodation would work a fundamental alteration of those services and facilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).

1. A failure to remove architectural barriers where such removal is readily achievable. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). Barriers are defined by reference to the ADA Standards.

1. 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. 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2).

34. Given his intent to use the Defendants’ facilities, Plaintiff had a right under the ADA to not be discriminated against, regardless of Plaintiff’s motivation for using the facilities. Thus, Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA were violated, resulting in a per se violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

35. When a business provides paths of travel, it must provide accessible paths of travel.
36. Here, accessible paths of travel were not provided in conformance with the ADA

Standards.

37. When a business provides sales counters, it must provide accessible sales counters.
38. Here, accessible sales counters were not provided in conformance with the ADA Standards.
39. The Safe Harbor provisions of the 2010 Standards are not applicable here because the conditions challenged in this lawsuit do not comply with the 1991 Standards.

40. A public accommodation must maintain in operable working condition those features of its facilities and equipment that are required to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 36.211(a).

41. Here, the failure to ensure that accessible facilities were available and ready to be used by the Plaintiff is a violation of the law.

42. The Unruh Act provides that any violation of the ADA is a violation of the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code, § 51(f).
43. Defendants’ acts and omissions, as herein alleged, have violated the Unruh Act by, inter alia, denying, or aiding, or inciting the denial of, Plaintiff’s rights to full and equal use of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services offered.

44. Because the violation of the ADA resulted in a denial of full and equal access to the Plaintiff, the Defendants are also each responsible for statutory damages, i.e., a civil penalty. Civ. Code § 55.56(a)-(c).

ll. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA DISABLED PERSONS

ACT (On behalf of Plaintiff and against all Defendants.) (Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1.)

45. Plaintiff repleads and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth again herein, the allegations contained in all prior paragraphs of this complaint. The California Disabled Persons Act (“CDPA”) guarantees, inter alia, that persons with disabilities are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever within the jurisdiction of the State of California. Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1.

46. The CDPA provides that any violation of the ADA is a violation of the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code, § 54.1(d).

47. Defendants’ acts and omissions, as herein alleged, have violated the CDPA by, inter alia, denying, or aiding, or inciting the denial of, Plaintiff’s rights to full and equal use of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services offered.

48. Because the violation of the ADA resulted in a denial of full and equal access to the Plaintiff, the Defendants are also each responsible for statutory damages, i.e., a civil penalty. Cal. Civ. Code § 54.3.

PRAYER:

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that this Court award damages and provide relief as follows: (Injunctive relief means they are asking for a court order requiring the business to make modifications to their facility)

1. For injunctive relief, compelling Defendants to remove all presently existing architectural barriers as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.2

2. For injunctive relief requiring that Defendants obtain biennial Certified Access Specialist (“CASp”) architectural inspections of the subject facility to verify on-going compliance and follow those inspection’s recommendations of all readily achievable barrier removal.

3. For injunctive relief requiring implementation of accessibility policies and requiring annual employee training on providing full and equal access to clients or customers with disabilities.

4. Damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act or California Disabled Persons Act, which provide for up to treble actual damages and a statutory minimum of $4,000 or $1,000 respectively per violation of each Act. While Plaintiff may prevail on each act individually, Plaintiff only seeks monetary recovery under whichever act results in the greatest damages, to be determined at trial. Note: The plaintiff is not invoking section 55 of the California Civil Code and is not seeking injunctive relief under the Disabled Persons Act at all.

5. Reasonable attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 52 and/or § 54.1.

Dated: Month, Day, Year        THE REDDY LAW FIRM, LLC

By: _________________

Prathima Reddy, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff