Defendant in Pro Per
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
dba Hair Do’s & Nails; and Does 1-10
Case No.: No. 2:13-cv-026-GEB-KJN filed 08/07/13
Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaints for Damages and Injunctive Relief for Violations of: American’s With Disabilities Act; Unruh Civil Rights Acts; California Disabled Persons Act; Negligence
Demand for Jury
Defendant, XXXXX, answers the complaint of Plaintiff, XXXXXXX as follows:
- Defendant admits that Defendant runs the Hair Do’s & Nails as a cosmetologist and
as a lessee of the Premises of the Beauty Salon atXXXXXXXXXXX
- Defendant admits the legalities of the articles and clauses of American’s With
Disabilities Act; Unruh Civil Rights Acts; California Disabled Persons Act in the complaint.
- Defendant admits that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit.
- Defendant denies Plaintiff’s allegations in paragraph 7,9,10, 11,12, 13,14,15,16,17,18,
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 on the grounds that Plaintiff had failed to see
Defendant’s Hair Do’s and Nails store additionally does have the bathrooms for the
Disabled, male and female, which were established architecturally and legally according to the California Building Codes.
- FURTHER, AS SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to each and every claim for
relief of the complaint, the answering Defendant states as follows:
FIRST AFFIRAMTIVE DEFNESE:
Defendant counters Plaintiff’s allegation in paragraph 10, “The Plaintiff has
both patronized and been deterred from patronizing the defendants’ facilities over
the last year, including a number of times in 2013,” on the grounds that Plaintiff
stopped by Defendant’s salon three times in 2013 not over the last year.
At first, without saying a word to anyone the store, in his wheelchair Plaintiff
entered Defendant’s salon at the beginning of this year. In August 2013 Plaintiff
came again the Defendant’s beauty salon and scrutinized the bathroom for
the nondisabled, but he failed to see the bathrooms for disabled male and female
which are adjacent of the bathroom that Plaintiff complained of. In the
afternoon on the same day, Plaintiff returned to the Defendant's beautify
salon and had his hair cut observed the said Plaintiff and later she filed
the false complaint.
SEOCND AFFIRAMTIVE DEFENSE:
Defendant counters Plaintiff’s allegation in paragraph 11, “…. This violation denied
the plaintiff full and equal access to facilities, privileges, and accommodations offered
by the defendants,” on the grounds that Plaintiff investigated the bathroom
for the nondisabled, but failed to observe that Defendant’s salon has appropriate
and legitimate bathrooms for the disabled (handicapped) male and female adjacent
to the bathroom for the nondisabled of which Plaintiff complained mistakenly or wrongly.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:
Defendant counters Plaintiff’s allegation in paragraph 17, “The plaintiff has been to the
defendants’ property on a number of occasions. Given its location and options, it is
in a desirable location for him and he will …and will continue to encounter the
unlawful barriers and discriminatory conditions there so long as they remain,”
on the grounds that Plaintiff has been to the Plaintiff's leased store just three times
not on a number of occasions.
WHEREOF defendant prays this Court to dismiss the complaint and enter judgment in
favor of defendant and to consider the following counterclaims:
- Plaintiff failed to see that there are two bathrooms for female and male disabled persons, which are adjacent to the bathroom that Plaintiff mistakenly and wrongly complained of as if Defendant violated the ADA laws.
- Defendant had to hire a English-Korean bilingual translator and paid $ 300. to translate the English-version complaint into Korean.
- Defendant hired a translator to prepare this answer and paid $500.
- Defendant drove to several pertinent places to prepare this answer, which incurred expense of $100.
- Defendant has not been able to run her beauty salon for five days since August 19, 2012 when she was served on the summons; as a result, her income loss is $1500.
- As a result of the translation of the complaint, and writing this answer, it cost Defendant $2,400. all together.
DATED: August 29, 2013