Whitaker v. Reeder, 2:19-CV-04341-SVW-AFM. (2020)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20200309627
Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 06, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 06, 2020
Summary: JUDGMENT (following bench trial) STEPHEN V. WILSON , District Judge . Following trial of this matter on February 18, 2020, the Court hereby enters judgment in favor of plaintiff Brian Whitaker on the first cause of action under the American's with Disabilities Act and orders defendants Marylee C. Reeder and Il Fornaio (America) Corporation to ensure that at least 5% of all the seating spaces at the Il Fornaio restaurant located at 301 N. Beverly Dr., Beverly Hills, California are accessibl
Summary: JUDGMENT (following bench trial) STEPHEN V. WILSON , District Judge . Following trial of this matter on February 18, 2020, the Court hereby enters judgment in favor of plaintiff Brian Whitaker on the first cause of action under the American's with Disabilities Act and orders defendants Marylee C. Reeder and Il Fornaio (America) Corporation to ensure that at least 5% of all the seating spaces at the Il Fornaio restaurant located at 301 N. Beverly Dr., Beverly Hills, California are accessible..
More
JUDGMENT
(following bench trial)
STEPHEN V. WILSON, District Judge.
Following trial of this matter on February 18, 2020, the Court hereby enters judgment in favor of plaintiff Brian Whitaker on the first cause of action under the American's with Disabilities Act and orders defendants Marylee C. Reeder and Il Fornaio (America) Corporation to ensure that at least 5% of all the seating spaces at the Il Fornaio restaurant located at 301 N. Beverly Dr., Beverly Hills, California are accessible to wheelchair users in compliance with sections 226, 305, 306 and 902 of the 2010 ADA Access Standards found at 36 C.F.R., Part 1191, Appendix B & D. Additionally, defendants are ordered to maintain these accessible tables so that they are readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities as required by 28 CFR 36.211.
The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and dismissed it without prejudice to it being filed in state court.
Source: Leagle
