John Ho v. BSG Sunflowers Investments, LLC

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Central District John Ho v. BSG Sunflowers Investments, LLC

John Ho v. BSG Sunflowers Investments, LLC

Plaintiff:	John Ho
Defendant:	BSG Sunflowers Investments, LLC
Case Number:	8:2017cv00863
Filed:	November 30, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Office:	Southern Division - Santa Ana Office
Presiding Judge:	Jay C. Gandhi
Presiding Judge:	Josephine L. Staton
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 12101 Americans With Disabilities Act

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
November 30, 2017	Filing 22 JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF JOHN HO AGAINST DEFENDANT BSG SUNFLOWER INVESTMENTS,LLC by Judge Josephine L. Staton. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED 1. That Plaintiff recover a total sum of $5180.00 from the Defendant, which includes $4,000.00 in stat utory damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, $600.00 in attorney's fees, and $580.00 in costs; and 2. That Defendant is enjoined from discriminating against individuals with disabilities by failing to remove the following architect ural barriers that interfere with the right of the disabled to full and fair access of the Property located at 3725 S Bristol Street, Santa Ana, CA 92704: (1) parking spaces and accompanying access aisles with slopes and/or cross slopes exceeding 2.0%; (2) accessible pathways that are too narrow and/or sloped for disabled individuals to navigate with a wheelchair; and (3) a lack of accessible pathways connecting all public buildings within the Property. (see document for details). (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (dro)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 30, 2017

Filing 22 JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF JOHN HO AGAINST DEFENDANT BSG SUNFLOWER INVESTMENTS,LLC by Judge Josephine L. Staton. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED 1. That Plaintiff recover a total sum of $5180.00 from the Defendant, which includes $4,000.00 in stat utory damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, $600.00 in attorney's fees, and $580.00 in costs; and 2. That Defendant is enjoined from discriminating against individuals with disabilities by failing to remove the following architect ural barriers that interfere with the right of the disabled to full and fair access of the Property located at 3725 S Bristol Street, Santa Ana, CA 92704: (1) parking spaces and accompanying access aisles with slopes and/or cross slopes exceeding 2.0%; (2) accessible pathways that are too narrow and/or sloped for disabled individuals to navigate with a wheelchair; and (3) a lack of accessible pathways connecting all public buildings within the Property. (see document for details). (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (dro)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: John Ho v. BSG Sunflowers Investments, LLC
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: BSG Sunflowers Investments, LLC
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: John Ho
Represented By:	Pamela Tsao
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?