here - Disability Rights Legal Center

@
1
.<
-¡
2
'-;'ìlnr'Y'
a
+- gt
J
4
7
8
Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS
6
I
(á)
C:'
?açot,
Éi) -t
-'
I f ì'-. >,'
DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER
800 South Figueroa Street, Suite
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephon e: (213) 7 3 6- I 49 6
Facsimile : (213) 7 36-1 428
5
=
ô
(,
_{
i-n r!
I
fl
---,-,
'¡'
".
u)(1 (')
Il20
¡>
a-ñ
f=
.l
¡- cì
H oÞ-
ãõe
Þ¡.j
O ¡Dãr
gÒ
'l
E'a Ã
11
I2
=
o
F
@
13
.!p8ã
I4
c¿ L. öo
'(uÉ
.? 3o< 15
'ãh õ
lø¡
^O æ
I6
t7
18
T9
20
2I
22
23
24
25
26
27
UNTTED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
V
)
)
KRIKORIAN PREMIERE TI{EATRE S, )
LLC,; REEL SERVICES
)
MANAGEMENT, LLC, and DOES 1-10, )
Inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
GREATER LOS ANGELES AGENCY
ON DEAFNE,SS, INC. and
ANTOINETTE ABBAMONTE, ON
behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated,
Case
No.
2: I3-cv-07172-PSG-AS
CLASS ACTION
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
INJI-]NCTIVE, AND DECLARATORY
RELIEF AND FOR DAMAGES
(Representative Plaintffi only) FOR
VIOLATIONS OF:
1. Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. $
2.
12182, et seq.)
Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civil
Code $ 51, et seq.)
JIJRY TzuAL DEMANDED
28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
f'
rY
P
9
10
Tl
INTRODUCTION
1
2
This class action lawsuit is brought by GREATER LOS ANGELES
-J
AGENCY ON DEAFNESS, INC. and ANTOINETTE ABBAMONTE on behalf of
4
individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing, to end on-going discrimination by
5
KRIKORIAN PREMIERE TI-IEATRES, LLC, REEL SERVICES MANAGEMENT,
6
LLC, and DOES 1-10, Inclusive (collectively "Defendants").
7
2.
Defendants have discriminated against, and continue to discriminate
8
against, individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing by failing and refusing to
9
provide closed captioning for the movies it offers to members of the public at
10
Lc)
11
oa¡
.of o r9.Ë i t2
==
-d(r=
ho
^v'
JE¡
1.
13
2Ø â
Krikorian Premiere Theaters throughout Southern Califomia. In so doing, Defendants
have violated, and continue to violate Title
III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"),42U.5.C.$ 12I0I,etseq.;the UnruhCivilRightsAct("UnruhAct"),CaL
Civ. Code $ 51, et seq.; and the Disabled Persons Act ("CDPA"), Cal. Civ. Code $ 54,
þsË
t4
Ëo¡!
et seq. As a result, individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing are unable to access
:=lr e 15
Defendants' goods and services to the same extent as non-disabled members of the
'!3
flæ
general public.
à Êo<
€"i"
t6
JURISDICTTON AND VENUE
I7
18
3.
This action arises under the laws of the United States, including the
T9
Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. $$ 12101, et seq.) ("ADA"), such that the
20
jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuan|to 28 U.S.C. $$ 1331,1343. Through
2I
the same events and omissions that form the basis for Plaintiffs' federal claims,
22
Defendants have also violated Plaintiffs' rights under state law, over which this Court
23
has supplemental jurisdiction pursuantÍo 28 U.S.C. $ 1367.
24
25
26
4.
The Court may grant declaratory and other relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
$$ 2201 and2202.
5.
Venue is proper within this District pursuantto 28 U.S.C. $ 1391(b)
27
because many of the events, acts and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims
28
occurred in the Central District of California.
-lFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
PARTIES
I
6.
2
Plaintiff GREATER LOS ANGELES AGENCY ON DEAFNESS, INC.
a
J
("GLAD") is a nationally recognized advocacy and service agency addressing the
4
needs of the deaf and hard of hearing population.
5
access
6
their hearing counterparts. The organization's general pu{poses and powers are
7
directed around the promotion of the social, recreational, cultural, educational, and
8
vocational well-being of its deaf and hard of hearing constituents.
9
GLAD's mission is to ensure equal
of the deaf and hard of hearing community to the same opportunities afforded
7.
GLAD's specific and primary purpose is to act as a coordinating agency
10
that addresses the broad social service needs of deaf and hard of hearing people
1l
through direct service provision, advocacy, research and dissemination of information
t2
regarding deafness to parents, professionals and consumers. For over 43 years, GLAD
l3
has been improving the lives of the deaf and hard of hearing community, proudly
"î
þsË
t4
ÉoË
serving 10 counties throughout Southem California: Los Angeles, Kern, Orange,
3n<
:= l¡, Q
15
Ventura, Santa Barbara, Riverside, San Luis Obispo, San Bernardino, Inyo and Mono.
t-¡ æ
r6
GLAD is committed to the philosophy "...of, by, for and with the deaf and hard of
T7
hearing."
¡ro
oôì
,q orv.:
n
$?ã
JE¡
!Ø
'Lè¡)
à
ۯc)"i'
18
8.
GLAD's constituents and the individuals that it serves are "qualified
t9
individuals with a disability" within the meaning of all applicable statutes including
20
42 U.S.C. $ 12131(2) and Cal. Government Code ç 12926.
2t
9.
22
lawsuit because:
23
GLAD is qualified to represent the interests of its constituents in this
a. Those constituents would otherwise have standing to sue in their own
24
right;
25
b. GLAD's
interest to ensure non-discriminatory access to recreational
26
opportunities for its constituents is germane to its purpose as an
27
organization; and
28
-2FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJLINCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1
c. Neither
require the participation of GLAD's individual constituents.
2
a
J
5
to challenge Defendants' discriminatory acts and omissions as alleged herein.
11.
Plaintiff ANTOINETTE ABBAMONTE ("Ms. Abbamonte") is deaf, and
7
substantially limited in the major life activity of hearing. Ms. Abbamonte has a
8
disability within the meaning of all applicable statutes including 42 U.S.C. $ 12131(2)
9
and Cal. Government Code ç 12926. Ms. Abbamonte is, and at all times relevant
1l
-Q os
\J,:n
I2
fÉ^ ø) ã
olË-.
i EÒ I3
tch
GLAD has also experienced harm including economic loss due to
diversion of their resources and a frustration of mission, and has independent standing
10
oê¡
10.
4
6
LO
the claims asserted nor the relief requested through this lawsuit
â
þså t4
herein \¡/as a resident of the State of California.
12.
Defendant KRIKORIAN PREMIERE THEATRES, LLC, is, and at all
times relevant herein was, the owner, operator, lessor andlor lessee of Krikorian
Premiere Theaters operating at the following Califomia locations:
a. Buena Park Metroplex - 8290 La Palma Ave. in Buena Park;
-oÉ
à
Ëo<
=l¡i
€ø,
0Ò
i5E
O
T6
b. Downey Cinema 10 - 8200 Third Street in Downey;
c. Monrovia Cinema 12 &. LFX - 410 South Myrtle Avenue in Monrovia;
T7
d.
15
18
t9
e. Redlands Cinema 14 - 340 North Eureka
f. San Clemente Cinema 6 - 641B Camino
22
Street in Redlands;
de los Mares
in San Clemente;
and
20
2l
Pico Rivera Village Walk 15 - 8540 Whittier Blvd., in Pico Rivera;
g. Vista Village Metroplex 15 - 25 Main Street in Vista.
13.
Defendant REEL SERVICES MANAGEMENT,LLC, is, and at all times
23
relevant herein was, the owner, operator, lessor andlor lessee of Krikorian Premiere
24
Theaters operating at the following California locations:
25
a. Buena Park Metroplex - 8290 La Palma Ave. in Buena Park;
26
27
b. Downey Cinema 10 - 8200 Third Street in Downey;
c. Monrovia Cinema 12 &. LFX - 410 South Myrtle Avenue in Monrovia;
28
d.
Pico Rivera Village Walk 15 - 8540 Whittier Blvd., in Pico Rivera;
-3FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
I
e. Redlands Cinema 14 - 340 North Eureka Street in Redlands;
2
f.
a
g. Vista Village Metroplex 15 - 25 Main
à
Fo<
€o'j'ì
Øe)
f-t æ
O
Krikorian Premiere Theaters ("KPT"; is one of the world's grandest
8
more planned to come. It boasts modern yet elegantly ref,rned megaplex-style theatres
9
at seven locations throughout Southem California, and offers approximately 90
r Ed t3
EØ å
=t¡r
14.
theatrical exhibition companies, with locations throughout Southern Califomia and
¡ro
1l
oôt
ÉJ'l o ¡.
v.:i
T2
d(r:
ào ^-'
cl˿
t¡ç*
Street in Vista.
7
10
HOÊ
^/LèO
de los Mares in San Clemente;
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
5
6
- 641B Camino
and
J
4
San Clemente Cinema 6
screens to the movie-going
public. KPT feature state-of-the-arl amenities to
moviegoers, including: digital projection, digital 3DX technology and digital sound.
15.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics there are
approximately 37 million individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing living in the
t4
United States. The Office of Deaf Access estimates thal3 million individuals who are
15
deaf and hard of hearing reside in California, with approximately 800,000 of those
I6
individuals calling the Greater Los Angeles area home.
l7
16.
Recent data from the Motion Picture Association of America indicates
of
18
that over two-thirds of Americans attend movies each year. Yet without some form
t9
captioning, individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing cannot enjoy movies to the
20
same extent as their hearing peers. They are unable to access and understand
2l
dialogue, song lyrics, and other pertinent aural information that is essential to the
22
movie-going experience.
23
17.
Captioning displays dialogue, song lyrics, and other pertinent aural
24
information in writing synchronized with film. Captioning is the only way that a
25
substantial portion of the population of people who are deaf and hard of hearing can
26
fully and equally participate in the movie-going experience.
27
28
18.
Closed captioning displays text only to those requestingit, and is not
visible to entire audience. Closed captioningfacilitates a complete movie experience
-4FTRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
I
for patrons who are deaf and hard of hearing without affecting the movie experience
2
of other movie-goers.
J
owners and operators, including theaters - like KPT
5
development of captioning technology over the past decade has made the provision
6
discreet or hidden captions easy to accomplish.
20.
-
thaf utilize digital cinema. The
F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit clearly indicated that closed captioning
9
technology is a valid "auxiliary aid" which is specifically mandated by the ADA.
¡rO
11
oôt
Jl o¡v.:
E T2
d(r=
à¡
^-'
QË..
È
Ed t3
=Ø,â
þs3"
/Loo
É{)Ë T4
of
In Arizona ex. Rel. Goddard v. Harkins Amusement Entemrises. 603
8
10
à
Closed captioning is readily, and cost-effectively available to theater
4
7
ão<
ãI¡
Q
€qc)ri'
t-t æ
19.
Despite this controlling opinion, Defendants have knowingly and intentionally
ignored their legal obligation to provide closed captioning in KPT theaters for patrons
who are deaf and hard of hearing.
2I.
The website for KPT theaters -- www.kptmovies.com
- contains no
information for deaf and hard of hearing patrons who require accommodations or
15
auxiliary aids and services to fully and equally access and enjoy the movies offered by
t6
Defendants to members of the public at KPT theaters.
T7
22.
On information and belief, Defendants fail and refuse to provide closed
18
captioning for all but 3 of its 90 screens. One of these screens is located atthe
I9
Monrovia KPT location; the other two are located at the Redlands KPT location.
20
Defendants offer no captioning at their Buena Park, Downey, Pico Rivera, San
2l
Clemente and Vista locations.
22
23.
Because Defendants have not complied with their legal obligation to
23
provide closed captioning, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class of individuals
24
who are deaf and hard of hearing have been excluded from the movie-going
25
experience at KPT theaters and deprived of the magical movie going experience
26
afforded hearing patrons.
27
28
24.
Defendants do not offer captioned movies at their Pico Rivera location:
the Pico Rivera Village Walk 15, located at 8540 Whittier Blvd., Pico Rivera.
5FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMACES
1
Defendants' Pico Rivera location to inquire about captioning availability for their
J
a
movies. A machine picked up, but did not provide the caller with the option to speak
4
with anyone. The GLAD employee then emailed the Pico Rivera location using the
5
email address provided on KPT's website, asking about captioning availability. As of
6
the date of the
8
9
=Ø,tî
Q
€ r,'
.2?
âõ
27.
On September 19,2013, a GLAD employee who is deaf contacted
movles.
å I4
!,s
/LèO
ÉtoE
¿<
the San Clemente Cinema 6, located at 641 B Camino de los Mares, San Clemente.
11
13
>r
Defendants do not offer captioned movies at their San Clemente location:
Defendants' San Clemente location and was told that it did not offer any captioned
== I2
-ñca=
b0 --'
ñl¡r
26.
filing of this complaint, no one has responded to this email.
10
3er
9Ë¿
-Èv
On September 16,2013, a GLAD employee who is deaf called
2
7
rr €)
o a.t
25.
28.
Defendants do not offer captioned movies at their Buena Park location:
the Buena Park Metroplex,8290 La Palma Ave., Buena Park.
29.
On or about September 23,2013, Plaintiff Abbamonte sought to see a
15
movie at Defendants' Buena Park location. She was told that there was no captioning
r6
equipment atthe location. As the lack of captioning atthe Buena Park location would
t7
prevent her fulI and equal participation in the movie-going experience, Ms.
18
Abbamonte was deterred from visiting the location to see a movie.
t9
30.
On September 20,2013, a GLAD employee who is deaf contacted
20
Defendants' Buena Park location and was told that it did not offer any captioned
2I
movies. An employee al the Buena Park location mentioned that the location had a
22
system for hearing aids, but could not explain what the system was or how it worked.
23
24
25
31.
Defendants do not offer captioned movies at their Vista location: Vista
Village Metroplex 15, 25 Main Street, Vista.
32.
On September 20,2013, a GLAD employee who is deaf contacted
26
Defendants' Vista location and was told it has no caption equipment of any kind for
27
deaf or hard of hearing patrons.
28
-6FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJLINCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1
2
a
J
33.
Defendants do not offer captioned movies at their Downey location:
Downey Cinema 10, 8200 Third Street, Downey.
34.
Plaintiff Abbamonte contacted the Corporate Office of KPY on
4
September 23, 2013. She was told that only two KPT locations offered captioning:
5
Monrovia and Redlands.
6
35.
Review of the KPT website on September 23,2013, confirmed that there
7
were no captioned movies offered at Defendants' Buena Park, Downey, Pico Rivera,
8
San Clemente and Vista locations as of that date.
9
36.
Review of the KPT website on September 23,2013, confirmed that the
10
only KPT locations offering captioned movies were the Monrovia KPT location and
LrÕ
Oôì
11
the other Redlands KPT location. The following was also evident from review of the
.Q or-
t2
KPT website on September 23,2013:
9.Ë i
Þ=
-E!^Ø;
rq¿Ë-.EÙ t3
(t)
a. At the Monrovia location, 4 out of 12 screenings of only I movie (out of
,.î
=
ÉsË
l4
rLè0
l{oÉ
à
d,<
:= I¡i
€qÒ"i'
f-l æ
Q
15
the 13 movies showing) offered captioning;
b. At the Redlands location, 4 out of 9 screenings of I movie and 4 out of
t6
10 screenings of a second movie (out of the 12 movies showing) offered
I7
captioning.
18
c.
One of the two captioned movies offered at the Redlands location
19
("Prisoners") was the same as the captioned movie shown at the
20
Monrovia location.
2l
37.
On information and belief, in each of the communities where Defendants
22
operate a KPT theater, they have competitors who offer captioning for most,
23
of the movies they show.
N
24
25
38.
ALL
if not all
o
Plaintiffs GLAD and Ms. Abbamonte seek to maintain this action as a
Civil
26
class action under Rule 23(b)(2) andlor Rule 23(bX3) of the Federal Rules of
27
Procedure. The Class consists of all individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing
28
who, during a time period to be determined by this Court, were denied, or are
-7FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
I
currently being denied, on the basis of disability, full and equal enjoyment of the
2
goods, seryices, facilities, privileges , advantages, or accommodations of any KPT
J
a
theater currently owned, operated, leased by, or leased to anylall of the Defendants
4
due to Defendants' failure and refusal to provide closed captioned movies and special
5
presentations.
39.
6
7
Joinder of all of such Class members in this lawsuit is impracticable.
40.
8
9
a. Whether Defendants are legally obligated to provide closed captioning
ll
Ó)ôl
for movies and special presentations at KPT theaters;
-q? o rlJ.Ë=
T2
cqØ=
à.0 - -'
QË¿.
13
Ecn å
Ë
l¿(oÉ
3o<
o
=lt
Øe
à
€ø'
i5B
There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class,
including without limitation, the following:
10
E,e
JLàD
The identified Class is believed to consist of well over 500,000 members.
b.
Whether it is an undue burden or fundamental alteration for Defendants
to purchase and install the equipment necessary to show closed captioned
movies and special presentations at KPT theaters;
I4
c. Whether
15
Defendants' practice of failing and refusing to provide closed
I6
captioned films at KPT theaters violates the ADA, Unruh Act and/or
I7
CDPA.
18
4I.
Plaintifß' claims
are typical of, and not antagonistic to, the claims
of all
of
t9
other members of the Class. Plaintiffs are, or adequately represent the interests
20
individuals who are, deaf and hard of hearing, and claim Defendants have violated the
2t
ADA, Unruh Act and CDPA by failing and refusing to provide closed captioning for
22
movies and special presentations at KPT theaters and by otherwise conducting their
23
business in a manner which caused, continues to cause, and
24
Class members to suffer the same or similar inj.try. Plaintiffs, by advancing their
25
claims,
26
will
42.
will in future
cause all
also advance the claims of all other similarly-situated individuals.
Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequafely protect the interests
27
of absent Class members. There are no material conflicts between Plaintiffs'claims
28
and those of absent Class members that would make class certification inappropriate.
-8FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1
Plaintiffs' counsel are experienced in disability rights and class action litigation, and
2
will vigorously
J
43,
assert Plaintiffs' claims and the claims of all Class members.
This action may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2)
ADA, Unruh Act and CDPA are applicable
4
because the Defendants' violations of the
5
to all members of the class. Therefore, an injunction requiring compliance with the
6
ADA, Unruh Act and CDPA is appropriate and the primary relief sought through this
7
lawsuit.
8
9
44.
This action may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(bX3)
because the many questions of law and fact which are common to class members and
-
as set forth above inparagraph 42
10
central to the case
¡-o
O a-¡
11
individual questions affecting members of the class.
J? o¡\J.ËE
T2
ã)l
-SCDH
I{do
øt Eci
13
45.
A class action is superior to other potential methods for achieving a fair
and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Whatever difficulties may exist in the
2Ø,tî
ÞsË
I4
/LêO
E(oÊ
à
do<
ãr¡
€AOri'
¡58
q
- clearly predominate over
management of this case as a class action
will be greatly outweighed by the benefits of
15
the class action procedure, including but not limited to providing Class members with
t6
a method for the redress and prevention of their injuries and claims that could not,
I7
given the complexity of the issues and the nature of the requested relief, be pursued in
18
individual litigation. Further, the prosecution of separate actions by the individual
T9
Class members, even
20
adjudications and incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants.
if possible, would
create a risk of inconsistent or varying
2t
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
22
(Violation of Title III of the Americans wíth Dìsabilities Act)
23
24
25
46.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in
the fore go ing p ar agraphs
47.
.
Congress enacted the ADA upon finding, among other things, that
26
"society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities" and that such
27
forms of discrimination continue to be a "serious and pervasive social problem
28
U.S.C. $ 12101(a)(2).
-9FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
." 42
48.
1
2
of the ADA is to provide "a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the
J
a
elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities" and "clear, strong,
4
consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with
5
disabilities;' 42 U.S.C. $ 12101(bX1)-(2).
49.
6
ocì
ã¡q*
à
8
services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public
9
accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place
10
public accommodation." 42 U.S.C. $ 12182(a). Motion picture houses, theaters,
11
concert halls, stadiums, and other place of exhibition and/or entertainment are
considered "public accommodations" for purposes of Title
$ 121
l5
Ltæ
t6
III.
of
42 U.S.C.
81(7XC).
50.
I4
]=lr e
€"i"
.2?
full and equal enjoyment of the goods,
against on the basis of disability in the
2Ø,tî
Éot
3o<
Title III of the ADA states that "No individual shall be discriminated
7
-9 oFu.:
t2
===
-c!Øx
bo ^''
.38* 13
JLÞO
In response to these f,rndings, Congress explicitly stated that the purpose
KPT theaters are "places of public accommodation" as defined under
Title III of the ADA,42 U.S.C. $12181(7XC).
51.
The ADA provides, inter alia, that it is discriminatory to subject an
T7
individual or class of individuals "to a denial of the opportunity of the individual or
18
class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
I9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
advantages, or accommodations of an entity" on the basis of a disabllity. 42 U.S.C.
$
r2r82(b)(l XAXi).
52. Discrimination under the ADA also includes a failure to "ensure that no
individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise
treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and
services." 28 C.F.R. $36.303(a). The "auxiliary aids and services" required to prevent
discrimination in the full and equal enjoyment of a service provided by a place of
public accommodation include "closed captioning." 2S C.F.R. $36.303(b)(l); Arizona
v. Harkins Amusemen tEn temrises 603 F.3d 666,675 (9th Cir.
ex. Rel. S
2010)
28
-10FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
I
53.
Defendants' acts and omissions, described herein, violate the rights of
2
Plaintifß and class members under Title III of the ADA and its implementing
a
regulations. Defendants' discriminatory conduct includes, but is not limited to the:
J
4
a. Discriminatory exclusion andlor denial of goods,
privileges, advantages, accommodations, andlor opportunities. 42 U. S.C.
5
$ 12182(bX1)(AXi);
6
7
services, facilities,
b. Provision of goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages, andlor
accommodations that are not equal to those afforded non-disabled
8
9
individuals. 42 U.S.C. $
oõì
.9 o¡l,.Ë i
c!(r:
b¡
11
services, facilities, privileges, advarrtages, or accommodations to
t2
individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that
Eci 13
2Ø,;
l"c9
.Yo o I4
making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such
goods, services, facilities, privileges, adv antages, or accommodations."
EoÊ
'LèI)
à
Q
=lr od'
€qÒ
Ítæ
in policies, practices, or
procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods,
--'
9Ë¿
È
30<
82(bXlXAXii);
c. Failure "to make reasonable modifications
10
¡rO
121
15
42 U.S.C. $
12
182(b)(2)(A)(ii); and
I6
d. Failure to "ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded,
t7
services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other
18
individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services." 28
t9
C.F.R. $36.303(a).
20
Pursuant to the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in 42 U.S.C. $ 12188
22
ç 12205, Plaintifß pray for judgment as set forth below.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
23
(Violation of the Unruh Civil Ríghts Act)
2T
24
25
26
27
denied
and 42 U.S.C.
54.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in
the foregoing paragraphs.
55.
The lJnruh Act guarantees, inter alia,lhatpersons with disabilities are
entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or
28
-11FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
1
2
services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever within the
jurisdiction of the State of California. Cal. Civ. Code, $ 51(b).
56.
J
4
the Unruh
5
6
tr¡
-9 ot9.:n
c{cr=
bo
--'
SE*
.Èv
Pv) ,;
Ëså
t¡(
'LèOo E
à
€ØÕrt'
flæ
Plaintiffs are persons within Califomia who are protected by the Unruh
58.
KPT theaters are business establishments pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code
$
59.
Defendants' acts and omissions, described herein, violate the rights of
10
Plaintifß and class members under the Unruh Act by, inter alía, denying, or aiding or
11
inciting the denial of, Plaintiffs' rights to fulI and equal use of the aocommodations,
12
advantages, facilities, privileges, or services offered by Defendants to the general
13
public. Defendants have also violated the Unruh Act by denying, or aiding or inciting
1
4
the denial of Plaintiffs' rights to equal access arising from the provisions of the ADA.
1
5
3¡<
=lrQ
57.
57, et seq. and, as such, must comply with the provisions of the Unruh Act.
9
qJ ôì
Act. Cal. Civ. Code, $ 51(Ð.
Act.
7
8
The Unruh Act also provides that a violation of the ADA is a violation of
60.
Pursuant to California Civil Code $ 52.1(f ), Plaintiff seek injunctive
16
relief and attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action. Representative Plaintifß
t7
also seek statutory damages up to three times the amount of actual damages, but in no
18
case less than 54,000
for every violation of Califomia Civil Code $51, et seq.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
I9
20
WHEREFORE, Plaintifß pray for the following relief:
2T
a.
22
That this Court retain jurisdiction over this action including supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintifß' state law claims;
b.
23
A declaration that Defendants are violating the law by failing to provide
24
Plaintifß and similarly situated individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing with
25
necessary auxiliary aids and services, as required by the
26
Law;
27
28
c.
ADA and California
A declaration that Defendants are violating the law by failing to
reasonably modify its policies and procedures to avoid discrimination against
t2FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
State
I
Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing,
2
required by the ADA and California State Law;
a
J
III of the ADA and
Plaintiffs' related state law claims ordering Defendants to take all steps necessary to
5
ensure that movies offered at KPT theaters are
6
who are deaf and hard of hearing, through the provision of closed captioned films;
e.
fully and equally enjoyable to persons
Damages for Representative Plaintifß only, in an amount to be
8
determined by proof, including applicable statutory damages pursuant to Cal. Civ.
9
Code $52;
10
,6ì o ¡9.:i
c{cr=
ô¡
^e'
QË..
That this Court issue an injunction pursuant to Title
4
7
tr c)
q)ct
d.
as
l1
t2
f.
Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as authorizedby 42 U.S.C.
$12188 and Cal. Civ. Code $52; and
g.
Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
I EÒ 13
=Ø,; t4
ËsË
rLèl)
'¡(oÉ
à ão<
€øj
Øe)
f-¡ oô
15
16
JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to F'ederal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs hereby demand a
trial by jury
as
to all issues.
l7
Dated: October
18
3,2013
DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER
r9
20
2t
22
23
By
MICI-IELLEUZETA, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintifß
GREATER LOS ANGELES
AGENCY ON DEAFNESS and
ANTOINETTE ABBAMONTE
24
25
26
27
28
- 13FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJLINCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES