Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Soriano v. C&N Management, Inc.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

April 3, 2017

KATHY SORIANO, Plaintiff,
v.
C&N MANAGEMENT, INC., and ACAPULCO MEXICAN GROCERY, INC, Defendants.

          FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

          JAMES S. MOODY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Plaintiffs Motion for Entry of Judgment After Default (Doc. No. 19), and the Court having considered the motion, having reviewed the pleadings, papers and supporting declaration filed herein, being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is hereby

         FOUND, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

         1. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, for Plaintiffs claims arising under 28 U.S.C. §12181, el seq., based upon Defendants' violation of Tide III of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, et seq.

         2. Defendants are the owners, operators, lessors and/or lessees of the real property and improvements which are the subject of this action (hereinafter, the "Facility").

         3. Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiff, who is an individual with a disability, by denying full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of the subject Facility as provided by 42 U.S.C. §§12182, et seq., and by failing to remove architectural barriers and thereby providing Plaintiff appropriate access to the subject Facility, as required by 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). Specifically, the Court finds that all of the alleged barriers to access identified in the Complaint shall be removed and remediated, in accordance with the ADA 2010 Standards. The alleged barriers are as follows:

a. There are an insufficient amount of accessible parking spaces. 2010 Standards sections 208.2 and 502 and Table 208.2.
b. Parking spaces designated as accessible are not, in fact, accessible. 2010 Standards sections 208 and 502.
c. There is not an accessible route throughout the site and facility. 2010 Standards sections 206 and 402.
d. There is not a properly designed and sloped ramp from the parking area to the Facility. 2010 Standards sections 208, 405 and 406.
e. There are doors that are inaccessible. 2010 Standards sections 206.5 and 404.
f. Self-service shelves and dispensers are inaccessible. 2010 Standards sections 904.5.1 and 308.
g. At least 5% of the tables and counters are not compliant. 2010 Standards ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.