Law Office of Rick Morin, PC
Rick Morin of the Law Office of Rick Morin, PC, represents many Plaintiffs in cases. Based in Sacramento and Newport Beach, California, he has filed accessibility lawsuits under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) against business and property owners in both state and federal court. Rick Morin also represents Plaintiffs in service animal denial cases against businesses. The Law Office of Rick Morin, PC, has represented serial Plaintiffs David Robinson and Lee Dozier.
Website: rickmorin.com
Address: 500 Newport Center Drive Suite 610
Phone: (949) 996-3094
Attorneys: Richard Morin
Known Plaintiffs: David Robinson, Lee Dozier
Rick Morin – law Offices of Rick Morin, PC – Example Lawsuit
The following is an example lawsuit filed by serial filer David Robinson. Robinson is represented by attorney Rick Morin. The Law Offices of Rick Morin is know for filing lawsuites under the American Disabilities Act.
Law Office of Rick Morin
Rick Morin, Esq., SBN 285275
Mail: 500 Newport Center Drive Suite 610
(949) 996-3094
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff David Robinson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
David Robinson, Case No. X-XX-XXXXX
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
v. AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
XXXXXXXX,
Defendants,
David Robinson (“Plaintiff”) alleges the following:
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX (collectively “Defendants”), for unlawfully discriminating against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff’s disability at the XXXXXXX located at XXXXXXX (“Property”).
2. Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive, and declaratory relief, attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and related California.
3. Plaintiff is a natural person and an adult resident of the San Francisco Bay At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff is and has been considered disabled.
4. Defendant XXXXXXX is believed to be a natural person who is a resident of XXXXXXX, California and who owned, managed, operated, and/or was otherwise responsible for the Property and where the XXXXXXX is located.
5. Defendant XXXXXXX is believed to be a natural person who is a resident of XXXXXXX, California and who owned, managed, operated, and/or was otherwise responsible for the Property and where the XXXXXXX is located.
JURISDICTION
6. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343 for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
7. Pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction, an attendant and related cause of action, arising from the same nucleus of operative facts and arising out of the same transactions, is also brought under California law.
VENUE
8. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 S.C. 1391 and is founded on the fact that the Property and the XXXXXXX are located inside this district and Plaintiff’s claims arose in this district.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
9. Plaintiff suffers from disabilities, and/or medical conditions that are disabilities.
10. Plaintiff is a paraplegic due to a tragic motorcycle accident.
11. Plaintiff requires a wheelchair to facilitate his mobility because of a spinal cord injury.
12. Plaintiff’s symptoms substantially limit his major life activities.
13. Plaintiff has at all relevant times, displayed a valid disabled person parking placard issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles.
14. Plaintiff’s lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, not far from the Property.
15. On XXXXXXX, Plaintiff personally visited the XXXXXXX located at XXXXXXX, California to eat.
16. Upon arriving at XXXXXXX Plaintiff could not find any accessible parking whatsoever.
17. At the Property, Plaintiff observed or was later informed of and believes in the existence of the following barriers:
i. There is no designated disabled access parking.
ii. The path of travel from the customer parking and across the drive aisle has cross slopes greater than 2%.
iii. The path of travel from the customer parking and across the drive aisle has gaps greater than half an inch wide.
iv. The exterior landing at the entry door has slopes greater than 2%.
v. The interior landing at the entry door has slopes greater than 2%.
vi. The entry door does not have a smooth surface extending the full width of the door.
18. Plaintiff would like to return to the Property and the XXXXXXX in the future as it is a convenient location for Plaintiff to get food and eat.
19. The XXXXXXX and Property are public accommodations and business establishments.
20. The XXXXXXX and Property are open to the public and their operation affects commerce.
21. XXXXXXX and the Property has undergone construction and/or alterations, structural repairs, or additions since XXXXXXX and/or XXXXXXX.
22. XXXXXXX and the Property are alleged to have had a permit applied for or have had physical new construction and/or alterations, structural repairs, and/or additions started after XXXXXXX.
23. Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer violations of his civil rights to full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, and privileges, and has suffered and will suffer negative feelings.
24. The absence of designated disabled-access parking in a location that provides customer parking overlooks the specific needs of individuals who use wheelchairs or have other mobility. Such oversight can significantly impede their ability to access the premises, as they rely on close, accessible parking spaces that accommodate their vehicles and mobility devices.
25. Paths of travel that include cross slopes exceeding 2% can pose considerable challenges for individuals using wheelchairs, as navigating such slopes requires additional effort and can increase the risk of the wheelchair tipping. This condition can make the journey from the parking area to the business entrance both difficult and unsafe.
26. Gaps wider than half an inch in the path of travel can become significant obstacles for wheelchair users, as wheels may become caught or difficult to maneuver over such discontinuities. These gaps can disrupt a smooth and safe passage, making it challenging for individuals with mobility devices to navigate from the parking area across the drive aisle.
27. An exterior landing at the entry door with a slope greater than 2% can hinder access for individuals with disabilities, making it difficult to maintain balance and stability while entering the building. Slopes of this magnitude can be particularly challenging for those in wheelchairs, as they may struggle to remain stationary or exert extra effort to access the entry door.
28. Similarly, an interior landing with a slope exceeding 2% can create accessibility barriers within the building, especially for individuals using mobility aids. Such slopes can affect the ability to move freely and safely inside the entrance area, potentially leading to discomfort or the need for assistance.
29. An entry door that lacks a smooth surface extending its full width can present difficulties for individuals with disabilities, particularly those who require a flat, stable area to operate the door. Doors without smooth surfaces across their entirety can be challenging to open, as they may not accommodate the various methods individuals with disabilities use to navigate entryways.
30. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the previous paragraphs as if they had been fully stated herein.
31. Defendants have denied Plaintiff full and equal enjoyment and use of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, and accommodations of the XXXXXXX and the Property.
32. The XXXXXXX is a public accommodation.
33. The Property is a public accommodation.
34. Defendants failed to remove architectural barriers, which are structural in nature, where it is reasonably achievable, without much difficulty or expense, and the cost of removing the architectural barriers does not exceed the benefits under these particular circumstances.
35. For those barriers where it is not reasonably achievable to remove them, if any, Defendants failed to make the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations available through alternative methods that are readily achievable.
36. The improvements at the Property are believed to have been designed and constructed, or both, after XXXXXXX, independently triggering access requirements under Title III of the ADA.
37. Defendants violated the ADA by failing to design and construct the facilities at the Property in a manner that was readily accessible to the physically disabled public, including Plaintiff, when it was structurally practical to do so.
38. Plaintiff alleges that the Property was modified after XXXXXXX, independently triggering access requirements under the ADA.
39. The ADA requires properties altered in a manner that affects or could affect its usability be made easily accessible to individuals with disabilities to the maximum extent feasible. 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2).
40. Defendants altered the Property in a manner that violated the ADA and was not readily accessible to the physically disabled public – including Plaintiff – the maximum extent possible.
41. The configuration and condition of the Property denied Plaintiff a public accommodation due to Plaintiff’s disability.
42. It is readily achievable for Defendants to remove the architectural barriers. Failure to Maintain Accessible Features
43. Defendants violated the ADA by failing to maintain in operable and working condition those features of the XXXXXXX and Property that are required to be readily accessible to and be usable by persons with disabilities.
44. Defendants’ failure in maintaining the XXXXXXX and Property in an accessible condition was not an isolated or temporary interruption in service or access due to maintenance or repairs.
45.The configuration and condition of the XXXXXXX and Property denied Plaintiff a public accommodation due to Plaintiff’s disability.
46. It is readily achievable for Defendant to remove the barriers.
47. Defendants do not have any legitimate business justification to excuse the condition and configuration of the XXXXXXX and Property.
48. Defendants’ violations are the cause of suffering for Plaintiff.
49. Plaintiff prays for all relief available under the ADA, including injunctive relief that prohibits violations complained of herein, which have the effect of wrongfully excluding Plaintiff and other members of the public who are physically disabled from full and equal access to these public facilities, as well as attorney’s fees, costs, and other expenses for these violations.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act
California Civil Code §§ 51-53
50. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the previous paragraphs as if they had been fully stated herein.
51. The XXXXXXX and the Property are business establishments.
52. As described above, Defendants intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff during Plaintiff’s visit to the XXXXXXXX at the Property.
53. The Unruh Act provides that a violation of the ADA is a violation of the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code 51(f).
54. Defendants violated the ADA during Plaintiff’s visit to XXXXXXX at the Property.
55. Defendant’s acts and omissions as specified are in violation of California Civil Code §§ 51 and 51.5, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and have denied Plaintiff’s right to “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”
56. Plaintiff was harmed.
57. Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
58. As a result of the violation of Plaintiffs civil rights protected by California Civil Code 5 §§ 51 and 51.5, Plaintiff is entitled to the rights and remedies of California Civil Code § 52, including a trebling of actual damages, minimum statutory damages, as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, as allowed by statute, according to proof.
59. Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin Defendants from violating disabled persons’ rights.
PRAYER
Plaintiff hereby prays for the following:
1. Injunctive relief compelling Defendants to cease its discrimination of disabled persons and remove all accessibility barriers that relate to Plaintiff’s disability;
2. Damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act of no less than $22,000;
3. Attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12205, Civil Code sections 52, and/or Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, expenses, and costs of suit;
4. Other relief that the court deems appropriate.
Dated: XXXXXXX Law Office of Rick Morin, PC 18
Richard Morin
Attorney for Plaintiff