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. Jai Santoshi Ma II LLC

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

November 6, 2017

KATHY SORIANO, Plaintiff,
v.
JAI SANTOSHI MA II LLC, Defendant.

          FINAL DEFAULT JUDGMENT

         THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Plaintiffs Motion for Entry of Judgment After Default, 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, et seq., based upon Defendant's violation of Title III of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, a seq.

         2. Defendant is the owner, operator, lessor and/or lessee of the real property and improvements which are the subject of this action (hereinafter, the "Facility").

         3. Defendant has 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 the alleged ADA violations identified in the Complaint must be remediated by Defendant in compliance with the ADA 2010 Standards:

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. The parking spaces designated as accessible lack clear and level access aisles. 2010 Standards section 502.3 and 502.4.
d. There is not an accessible route throughout the site and facility. 2010 Standards sections 206 and 402.
e. There is not a properly designed and sloped ramp from the parking area to the Facility. 2010 Standards sections 208, 405 and 406.
f. There are doors that are inaccessible. 2010 Standards sections 206.5 and 404.
g. Counters where customer service and/or transactions occur are inaccessible. 2010 Standards sections 227 and 904.
h. Restrooms at the Facility are not accessible. 2010 Standards.
i. There are designated accessible parking spaces that have faded paint and have not been maintained, in violation of Section 36.211 of the 2010 Standards, which remedy is readily achievable.
j. The designated accessible parking spaces are not located on the shortest accessible route closest to the accessible entrance they serve, in violation of Section 208.3.1 of the ...

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.