Velez v. Old Sugar Mill Winery, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedMay 19, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-02097
StatusUnknown

This text of Velez v. Old Sugar Mill Winery, LLC (Velez v. Old Sugar Mill Winery, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Velez v. Old Sugar Mill Winery, LLC, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

1 PAUL L. REIN, Esq. (SBN 43053) 2 AARON M. CLEFTON, Esq. (SBN 318680) REIN & CLEFTON, Attorneys at Law 3 200 Lakeside Drive, Suite A Oakland, CA 94612 4 Telephone: 510/832-5001 Facsimile: 510/832-4787 5 info@reincleftonlaw.com

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN VELEZ 7 Richard Morin (SBN 285275) 8 Law Office of Rick Morin, PC 555 Capitol Mall Suite 750 9 Sacramento, CA 95814-4508 Phone: (916) 333-2222 10 Email: legal@rickmorin.net

11 Attorneys for Defendant OLD SUGAR MILL WINERY, LLC 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 JOHN VELEZ Case No. 2:21-cv-2097-KJM-AC 15 Civil Rights Plaintiff, 16 COURT ENFORCEABLE v. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND 17 ORDER FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF OLD SUGAR MILL WINERY, LLC, FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 18 Defendant. Action Filed: November 12, 2021 19

20 21

22 1. Plaintiff JOHN VELEZ filed a Complaint in this action on November 12, 23 2021, to enforce provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 24 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and California civil rights laws and to obtain recovery of damages 25 for discriminatory experiences, denial of access, and denial of civil rights against Defendant 26 OLD SUGAR MILL WINERY, LLC. Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant violated Title III 27 of the ADA; Sections 51, 52, 54, 54.1, and 54.3 of the California Civil Code; and Health and 28 1 Safety Code §§ 19953 et. seq. by failing to provide full and equal access to patrons and their 2 service dogs at the Old Sugar Mill located at 35265 Willow Ave, Clarksburg, California. 3 2. In order to avoid the costs, expense, and uncertainty of protracted litigation, 4 Plaintiff JOHN VELEZ and Defendant OLD SUGAR MILL WINERY, LLC (together 5 sometimes the “Signing Parties”) agree to entry of this Court Enforceable Settlement 6 Agreement and Order to resolve all claims regarding injunctive relief, damages, and 7 attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs, raised in the Complaint without the need for 8 protracted litigation. Accordingly, the Signing Parties agree to the entry of this Order 9 without trial or further adjudication of any issues of fact or law concerning Plaintiff’s claims 10 for relief. 11 12 JURISDICTION: 13 3. The Signing Parties to this Court Enforceable Settlement Agreement and 14 Order agree that the Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1331 15 for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. sections 16 12101 et seq. and pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction for alleged violations of California 17 Civil Code sections 51, 54, and 54.1. 18 WHEREFORE, the Signing Parties to this Court Enforceable Settlement Agreement 19 hereby agree and stipulate to the Court's entry of this Court Enforceable Settlement 20 Agreement and Order, which provide as follows: 21 22 SETTLEMENT OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: 23 4. This Order shall be a full, complete, and final disposition and settlement of 24 Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant for injunctive relief that have arisen out of the subject 25 Complaint. 26 5. The Signing Parties agree and stipulate that any policies adopted shall be 27 carried out in compliance with the standards and specifications for disabled access federal 1 Enforceable Settlement Agreement and Order. 2 a. Policy Based Remedial Measures and Administrative Procedures: 3 i. Defendant shall adopt the Service Animal Policy attached as 4 Exhibit A and train their staff within 30 days from the date of the 5 filing of this document. Defendant shall adopt this agreement for 6 all locations at which they operate. 7 ii. Defendant agrees that within 45 days from the date of filing this 8 document with the Court, Defendant will make the following 9 policy and training commitments: All staff, including but not 10 limited to security guards, hostesses, servers, and managers, will 11 be trained to implement the new service animal policy attached as 12 Exhibit A and offer reasonable accommodations for disabled 13 persons, including affirmatively inquiring with disabled patrons as 14 to whether they may need any reasonable accommodations. 15 Defendant agrees to make reasonable accommodations in their 16 policies and practices when interacting with disabled patrons. 17 Defendant shall include this training in the process of retaining all 18 new personnel hires interacting with the public or supervising 19 those who do. 20 iii. Defendant shall maintain accessible feature, which includes 21 training any new employees regarding their Service Animal Policy, 22 and keeping this policy as part of their employee handbook and/or 23 training manual. 24 b. Timing: All policy measures will be implemented within 45 days of 25 filing of this document. In the event that unforeseen difficulties 26 prevent Defendant from completing any of the agreed-upon injunctive 27 relief, Defendant or its counsel will notify Plaintiff’s counsel in 1 have thirty (30) days to investigate and meet and confer with 2 Defendant, and to approve the delay by stipulation or otherwise 3 respond to Defendant’s notice. If the Signing Parties cannot reach 4 agreement regarding the delay within that time period, Plaintiff may 5 seek enforcement by the Court. 6 c. Defendant or defense counsel will notify Plaintiff’s counsel when the 7 policy is implemented and the training is completed, and, whether 8 completed or not, will provide a status report to Plaintiff’s counsel no 9 later than April 1, 2022. 10 d. If Defendant fails to provide injunctive relief on the agreed upon 11 timetable and/or fail to provide timely written status notification, and 12 Plaintiff file a motion with the Court to obtain compliance with these 13 terms, Plaintiff reserves the right to seek additional attorney’s fees for 14 any compliance work necessitated by Defendant’s failure to keep this 15 agreement. If the Signing Parties disagree, the Signing Parties agree to 16 participate in a Magistrate Judge-conducted Settlement Conference for 17 the purposes of resolving the disputed fees. If the Settlement 18 Conference fails to resolve the fee dispute, Plaintiff may seek relief via 19 motion for an order directing the Defendant to pay Plaintiff’s counsel 20 reasonably incurred fees. 21 22 DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS’ FEES, LITIGATION EXPENSES, AND COSTS: 23 6. The Parties have reached a separate settlement agreement regarding Plaintiff’s 24 claims for damages, attorneys’ fees, and litigation expenses, which agreement fully and 25 finally resolves Plaintiff’s claims for damages, including attorneys’ fees and litigation costs 26 and expenses against Defendant. The Parties jointly request that the Court retain jurisdiction 27 to enforce that agreement. 1 7. This Court Enforceable Settlement Agreement and Order constitute the entire 2 agreement between the Signing Parties on the matters of injunctive relief, damages, 3 attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and costs, and no other statement, promise, or agreement, 4 either written or oral, made by any of the Signing Parties or agents of any of the Signing 5 Parties that is not contained in this written Court Enforceable Settlement Agreement and 6 Order, shall be enforceable regarding the matters of injunctive relief described herein.

8 COURT ENFORCEABLE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER BINDING ON SIGNING PARTIES AND SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST: 9 10 8. This Court Enforceable Settlement Agreement and Order shall be binding on 11 Plaintiff, Defendant, and any successors-in-interest.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America
511 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Collins v. Thompson
8 F.3d 657 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Velez v. Old Sugar Mill Winery, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velez-v-old-sugar-mill-winery-llc-caed-2022.