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.

Kennedy v. Taco City 3, Inc.

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

February 9, 2018

PATRICIA KENNEDY, Plaintiff,
v.
TACO CITY 3, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER

          PAUL G. BYRON, UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 13), filed June 29, 2017. Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16), recommending that the motion be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff timely filed an objection on December 6, 2017. (Doc. 17).

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff initiated this action on April 10, 2017, alleging violations of Title III of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Plaintiff complains that Defendant's property is non-compliant with multiple requirements of the ADA, including:

i. Defendant fails to adhere to a policy, practice and procedure to ensure that all goods, services and facilities are readily accessible to and usable by the disabled.
ii. Defendant fails to maintain its features to ensure that they are readily accessible and usable by the disabled.
iii. There is a lack of a compliant, accessible route connecting the disabled parking spaces with all the goods, services and facilities of the property, with excessive slopes, abrupt changes in level, unsecured floor mats/carpeting, and hazards on ground surfaces.
iv. There is an insufficient number of compliant parking spaces and access aisles, with excessive slopes.
v. There are non-compliant restrooms, with improperly located amenities, inaccessible commodes, lack of compliant grab bars, missing grab bars, flush controls on wrong side, inaccessible sinks, non-compliant doorways, improper door hardware, insufficient door clearance, insufficient maneuvering space, lack of required clear floor spaces, and obstructions.
vi. There is a lack of compliant accessible seating and tables.
vii. The transaction counter is inaccessible.

         Plaintiff alleges that she has encountered these violations on the subject property and, as a result, Defendant discriminated against her based on her disability by “denying her access to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of its place of public accommodation or commercial facility.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 17).

         After a careful review of the Complaint, Magistrate Judge Irick recommends Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment be denied because the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 16). Plaintiff objects to this recommendation.

         II. ...


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.