Brian Whitaker vs State Street Enterprises LLC et al

Case Number

24CV06641

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 04/11/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Hearing

Tentative Ruling

(1) For all reasons discussed herein, the early evaluation conference is continued to May 2, 2025.

(2) The February 18, 2025, Order granting defendants’ application for a stay and early evaluation conference pursuant to Civil Code section 55.54, is modified to include the following: Any Certified Access Specialist or “CASp” inspection report that may be submitted by defendants in this action may be disclosed only to the court, the parties to the action and their attorneys, those individuals employed or retained by the attorneys to assist in the litigation, and insurance representatives or others involved in the evaluation and settlement of the case. The confidentiality of the inspection report shall terminate upon the conclusion of the claim unless the owner of that report obtains a court order pursuant to the California Rules of Court to seal the record. Plaintiff Brian Whitaker shall, at least 15 days before the date of the early evaluation conference, file and serve a statement that includes all of the items described in Civil Code section 55.54, subdivision (d)(7)(A) through (D).

(3) Plaintiff and defendants shall, on or before April 23, 2025, file joint or, if necessary, individual status reports setting forth the following matters: (1) the current condition of the site at issue in this action; (2) whether or not any corrections have been noted by a Certified Access Specialist, including in the Certified Access Specialist (CASp) Report filed by defendants in this action on March 20, 2025; (3) the status of defendants efforts to make progress toward completion of any corrections noted by a Certified Access Specialist or in the CASp Report filed by defendants, including whether or not defendants have failed to make reasonably timely progress toward completion of any such corrections; (4) the status of any plan of corrections including whether defendants have corrected or are willing to correct the violations alleged in plaintiff’s complaint; (5) the timeline for the correction of any violations alleged in plaintiff’s complaint; (6) whether Civil Code section 55.56, subdivision (f), is or may be applicable to this case including whether all violations giving rise to the claims alleged in the complaint have been corrected within specified time periods; (7) whether this matter can be settled; (8) whether or not there exists good cause to lift the stay; and (9) any other information the parties request the court to consider at the continued conference or which may facilitate the early evaluation or resolution of the present dispute.

Background: 

On November 26, 2024, plaintiff Brian Whitaker (Whitaker) filed in this action a verified complaint against defendants State Street Enterprises, LLC, (SSE), and Viva Oliva, LLC, (Viva LLC), doing business as Viva Oliva (Viva Oliva) (collectively, defendants), alleging two causes of action: (1) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51); and (2) violation of the California Disabled Persons Act (Civ. Code, § 54 et seq.) (Note: Information appearing in the record appears to suggest that Viva Oliva was named erroneously in this action.) As alleged in the complaint:

SSE owns real property located at 927 State Street (the property) in Santa Barbara, California. (Compl., ¶¶ 2-3.) Viva LLC owns Viva Oliva which is located at the property. (Compl., ¶¶ 4-5.) Whitaker, a resident of Cameron Park, California, is a quadriplegic who cannot stand or walk, and who uses a wheelchair for mobility. (Compl., ¶¶ 1 & 12.) Whitaker is an “ADA” advocate and tester who qualifies as a high frequency litigant under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.50, subdivision (a)(4)(B). (Compl., ¶ 29.)

On September 6, 2024, while on vacation in Santa Barbara, Whitaker visited Viva Oliva with the intention to avail himself of its benefits, goods, and services, as well as to determine if defendants comply with disability access laws. (Compl., ¶¶ 10 & 13.) While at Viva Oliva, Whitaker encountered a barrier at the counter of the store which prevented Whitaker from completing his transaction and which failed to conform to the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA), codified as 42 U.S.C section 12101 et seq. (Compl., ¶¶ 10 & 15-19.) This barrier currently exists. (Compl., ¶ 20.)

On February 10, 2025, defendants filed an application (the application) requesting a stay of these proceedings and an early evaluation conference pursuant to pursuant to Civil Code section 55.54. In the application, defendants assert that they are a business, that the property has been inspected by a Certified Access Specialist or “CASp”, that an inspection report by a CASp has been issued, and that there have been no modifications completed or commenced since the date of that inspection which may impact compliance with construction-related accessibility standards. (Application, ¶¶ 3(a)(1)-(2) & (d)(1).)

On February 18, 2025, the court entered an order (the Order) granting the application, imposing a 90 day stay of these proceedings, and scheduling an early evaluation conference (the conference) for April 2, 2025. Further, the court directed the parties to appear in person at the conference, and to meet at the property within 30 days for a joint inspection to review the issues that Whitaker claims are a violation of construction-related accessibility standards.

On March 20, 2025, the court continued the conference to April 11, 2025.

Also on March 20, 2025, defendants submitted a confidential CASp report (the Report).

Court records reflect that neither defendants nor Whitaker has submitted additional filings relating to the application.

Analysis:

Civil Code section 55.51 et seq. (the Construction-Related Accessibility Standards Compliance Act or Act) sets forth procedures under which certain defendants may request a stay and early evaluation conference upon being served with a summons and complaint asserting a “construction-related accessibility claim” as that term is defined in the Act. (Civ. Code, § 55.54, subd. (b)(1).) There is no information in the present record to suggest or indicate that any party to this action disputes whether Whitaker has alleged in the complaint a “construction-related accessibility claim”. (See Civ. Code, § 55.52, subd. (a)(1) [defining the claim].)

Information appearing in the application indicates that defendants are “qualified” defendants under the Act. (See Civ. Code, § 55.52, subd. (a)(8).) The record also reflects that the application is based in part on Whitaker’s status as a high-frequency litigant. (Civ. Code, § 55.54, subd. (b)(2)(D).)

Defendants have submitted the Report as required under Civil Code section 55.54, subdivisions (c)(1)(B) and (d)(4)(A). Whitaker submits no information showing why the application fails to comply with subdivision (c)(1) of Civil Code section 55.54, why defendants have failed to file any documents required to be submitted under the Act, or why any purported inspection of the property by a CASp, or the Report, fails to comply with any provision of the Act, including section 55.53.

Relevant here, “[u]pon the filing of an application for stay and early evaluation conference by a qualified defendant … , the court shall immediately issue an order” that includes all of the matters set forth in Civil Code section 55.54, subdivision (d)(1) through (7). (Civ. Code, § 55.54, subd. (d).) The Act further requires that the early evaluation conference must include an evaluation of all of the matters set forth in subdivision (f) of section 55.54. (Civ. Code, § 55.54, subd. (f).) The court “may lift the stay at the conclusion of the early evaluation conference upon a showing of good cause by the plaintiff.” (Civ. Code, § 55.54, subd. (e)(3).)

As a preliminary matter, the proposed order lodged by defendants on February 10, 2025, and entered by the court on February 18, 2025, did not set forth the terms under which the Report shall remain confidential as required under the Act. (See Civ. Code, § 55.54, subd. (d)(5). The proposed order also does not direct Whitaker to file and serve the statement required under Civil Code section 55.54, subdivision (d)(7)(A) through (D). Therefore, to comply with the Act’s requirements, the Order requires modification.

The court also requires additional information to facilitate the evaluation required under the Act, and to determine whether the stay of these proceedings should be lifted. For these and all reasons further discussed herein, the court will continue the conference.

Absent information showing that, under the circumstances present here, there exists an exemption from any of the Act’s requirements, the court will modify the Order to include the following: any CASp inspection report submitted by defendants may be disclosed only to the court, the parties to the action and their attorneys, those individuals employed or retained by the attorneys to assist in the litigation, and insurance representatives or others involved in the evaluation and settlement of the case. The confidentiality of the inspection report shall terminate upon the conclusion of the claim unless the owner of that report obtains a court order pursuant to the California Rules of Court to seal the record. In addition, Whitaker shall, at least 15 days before the conference, file and serve a statement that includes all of the items described under Civil Code section 55.54, subdivision (d)(7)(A) through (D).

In addition, the court will order the parties to, prior to the continued conference, file joint or, if necessary, individual status reports setting forth the following matters: (1) the current condition of the site at issue; (2) whether or not any corrections have been noted by a CASp or in the Report, and the status of defendants’ efforts to make reasonably timely progress toward completion of any such corrections; (3) the status of any plan of corrections including whether defendants have corrected or are willing to correct the violations alleged in the complaint; (4) the timeline for the correction of any violations alleged in the complaint; (5) whether Civil Code section 55.56, subdivision (f), is or may be applicable to this case including whether all violations giving rise to the claims alleged in the complaint have been corrected within specified time periods; (6) whether this matter can be settled; (7) whether or not there exists good cause to lift the stay; and (8) any other information the parties request the court to consider at the continued conference or which may facilitate the early evaluation or resolution of the present dispute.