Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 21PSCV00505, Date: 2022-11-23 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. R at 909-802-1117 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 21PSCV00505    Hearing Date: November 23, 2022    Dept: R

GABRIELA CABRERA vs COST PLUS, INC. (21PSCV00505)

______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff Gabriela Cabrera’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Gabriela Cabrera’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT is DENIED

without prejudice.

Background

This is an ADA case.[1] Plaintiff Gabriela Cabrera (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendant for ADA violations. Plaintiff, who has polio and cannot walk without a wheelchair. Plaintiff alleges that the store’s merchandise displays are in violation of ADA laws because they failed to offer accessible routes and adequate maneuvering space for her wheelchair to travel.

On June 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit.

On September 13, 2021, default was entered against Defendant.

On August 16, 2022, the court denied Plaintiff’s application without prejudice.

On August 18, 2022, Plaintiff re-filed her application.

Discussion

Previously, the court denied Plaintiff’s application because Plaintiff did not provide an analysis as to how the aisles amount to an architectural barrier.

Now, the court still does not find that Plaintiff met her burden. Plaintiff states that she “estimate[s] that the width of the aisle ways in the photos provided to be 28-32” wide” when the “California Code of Regulations, Part 2, Chapter 11B (California Building Code) requires aisle ways require a width of 44” when serving elements on both sides,” but Plaintiff does not provide a measurement (i.e., took a ruler to measure the aisle and provided a measurement of said photo on the day at issue). 

On this issue, Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities cites to Chapter 11B and provide the extent text that requires 44-inch aisles. If Plaintiff elects to file another application, the court requests Plaintiff to provide the regulatory language as an exhibit.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the application is again denied without prejudice