Jose Martinez v. Kumars Ghodrati et al
| Jose Martinez |
| Does, Kumars Ghodrati, Lili Ghodrati, Rola, Inc. and Yum Yum Donut Shops, Inc. |
| 2:2015cv04703 |
| June 22, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Michael W. Fitzgerald |
| Frederick F. Mumm |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
50
JUDGMENT 49 33 by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that final judgment in this action be entered as follows: 1. On the claim for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 67;§ 12101 et seq.: Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Jose Martinez and against Defendants Kumars Ghodrati, Lili Ghodrati, and Yum Yum Donut Shops, Inc. The Americans with Disabilities Act entitles claimants only to injunctive rel ief. On the claim for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f): Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Jose Martinez and against Defendants Kumars Ghodrati, Lili Ghodrati, and Yum Yum Donut Shops, Inc., and Plainti ff Jose Martinez shall take a single statutory penalty in the amount of $4,000. Plaintiff Jose Martinez is further awarded his attorneys' fees and costs as provided by law. (See attached document for details.) (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lom)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
