Brian Whitaker v. 501 State Street, Inc., et al
Brian Whitaker v. 501 State Street, Inc., et al
Case Number
24CV07072
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Wed, 04/09/2025 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Early Evaluation Conference
Tentative Ruling
For Plaintiff Brian Whitaker: Prathima Reddy Price, Sumedh Rishi, The Reddy Law Firm LLC
For Defendant 501 State Street, Inc.: Jesse M. Caryl, Bent Caryl & Kroll, LLP
For Defendant BR&J Leather, LLC, dba Casa Comal: Matthew Olufs, Law Office of Matthew Olufs.
RULING
(1) For all reasons discussed herein, the early evaluation conference is continued to April 30, 2025.
(2) The February 18, 2025, Order granting the application of defendant BR&J Leather, LLC, doing business as Casa Comal, for a stay and early evaluation conference pursuant to Civil Code section 55.54, is modified to include the following: At least 15 days before the continued early evaluation conference, plaintiff Brian Whitaker shall file and serve a statement that includes all of the items described under Civil Code section 55.54, subdivision (d)(7)(A) through (D). Within 10 calendar days after the completion of the corrections described in the application, defendant BR&J Leather, LLC, doing business as Casa Comal, shall file and serve evidence showing that the violation or violations have been corrected as required under Civil Code section 55.54, subdivision (d)(4)(B).
(3) Plaintiff and defendant shall, on or before April 21, 2025, file joint or, if necessary, individual status reports setting forth the following matters: (1) the current condition of the site at issue in the complaint; (2) the status of any plan of corrections including whether defendant has corrected or is willing to correct the violations alleged in the complaint; (3) the timeline for the correction of any violations alleged in the complaint; (4) 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; (5) whether this matter can be settled; (6) whether or not there exists good cause to lift the stay; and (7) any other information the parties request the court to consider at the continued conference or which may facilitate the early evaluation and resolution of the present dispute.
Background
On December 17, 2024, plaintiff Brian Whitaker (Whitaker) filed in this action a verified complaint against defendants 501 State Street, Inc., (501 State) and BR&J Leather LLC (BR&J), doing business as Casa Comal (Casa Comal) 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.).As alleged in the complaint:
Whitaker is a quadriplegic who cannot stand or walk, and who uses a wheelchair for mobility. (Compl., ¶ 1.) Whitaker is an advocate and tester who qualifies as a high frequency litigant as that term is defined in Code of Civil Procedure section 425.50, subdivision (a)(4)(B). (Compl., ¶¶ 31-34.)
On September 6, 2024, Whitaker, while on vacation, visited Casa Comal, which is a restaurant located at 505 State Street in Santa Barbara, California (the property), for lunch. (Compl., ¶¶ 4, 10, & 14.) Casa Comal is owned by BR&J, and the property where Casa Comal is located is owned by 501 State. (Compl., ¶ 2.) While at Casa Comal, Whitaker encountered barriers which prevented Whitaker from accessing or using dining tables, prevented Whitaker from completing his transaction without difficulty, inconvenience, and embarrassment, and which failed to conform to the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA), codified as 42 U.S.C section 12101 et seq. (Compl., ¶¶ 15-19.) These barriers currently exist. (Compl., ¶ 21.)
On January 21, 2025, 501 State filed a verified answer to the complaint, responding to its allegations and asserting eight affirmative defenses.
On February 10, 2025, BR&J 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, BR&J asserts that the property has had new construction or improvements on or after January 1, 2008, which were approved pursuant to the local building permit and inspection process, and that there have been no modifications or alterations completed or commenced since that approval that impacted compliance with construction-related accessibility standards with respect to Whitaker’s claim. (Application, ¶ 3(b)(1)-(2).) BR&J further contends that the violations have been corrected or will be corrected within sixty days of BR&J being served with the complaint. (Application, ¶ 3(b)(3).)
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 9, 2025. The court further directed the parties to appear in person at the conference, and ordered the parties and their counsel to, within 30 days, meet at the property for a joint inspection to review the issues that Whitaker claims are a violation of construction-related accessibility standards.
The court’s records reflect that neither Whitaker nor BR&J have submitted any 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” as that term is defined under the Act. (See Civ. Code, § 55.52, subd. (a)(1) [defining claim].)
Information appearing in the application indicates that BR&J is not a “qualified” defendant as that term is defined in the Act. (See Civ. Code, § 55.52, subd. (a)(8).) Instead, the application of BR&J is based, in part, on the purported existence of new and approved construction or improvements at the property on or after January 1, 2008, which have not been modified. (Civ. Code, § 55.54, subd. (b)(2)(A).) 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).)
Relevant here, “[u]pon the filing of an application for stay and early evaluation conference by … a defendant described by paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), 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 also requires that the conference must include an evaluation of all of the matters set forth in subdivision (f) of Section 55.54, and that the court to lift the stay “when a defendant described by paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) has failed to file and serve the evidence showing correction of the violation or violations as required by law.” (Civ. Code, § 55.54, subd. (e)(2)(B).) Further, 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 BR&J on February 10, 2025, and entered by the court on February 18, 2025, did not direct BR&J to file and serve “evidence showing correction of the violation or violations within 10 calendar days after the completion of the corrections” as required under Civil Code section 55.54, subdivision (d)(4)(B). The lodged order also does not direct Whitaker to file and serve “at least 15 days before the date of the conference” the statement required under Civil Code section 55.54, subdivision (d)(7)(A) through (D). To comply with the Act’s requirements, the Order requires modification.
In addition, the court requires additional information to facilitate the evaluation required under the Act, and to determine whether the stay of these proceedings should be lifted at the conference. For these and all reasons further discussed herein, the court will continue the early evaluation conference.
As there is no information or evidence in the present record that would indicate or suggest that the proposed order lodged by BR&J is exempt from Civil Code section 55.54, subdivision (d)(4)(B) or (d)(7), the court will amend the Order to include the following: Whitaker shall, at least 15 days before the continued 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). BR&J shall, within 10 calendar days after the completion of the corrections described in the application, file and serve evidence showing that the violation or violations have been corrected as required under Civil Code section 55.54, subdivision (d)(4)(B).
In addition, the court will order Whitaker and BR&J 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 in the complaint; (2) the status of any plan of corrections including whether BR&J has corrected or is willing to correct the violations alleged in the complaint; (3) the timeline for the correction of any violations alleged in the complaint; (4) 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; (5) whether this matter can be settled; (6) whether or not there exists good cause to lift the stay; and (7) any other information the parties request the court to consider at the continued conference or which may facilitate the early evaluation and resolution of the present dispute.