Feng, Zhu v. Xie, John et al.

only if the plaintiff first makes a plausible showing that the barrier removal is readily achievable, does the defendant then have to negate that showing and prove that the removal is not readily achievable ... Here, the moving papers did not make “a plausible showing that removal of the barrier is readily achievable.” Again, this invokes the circular argument of whether (allegedly) non-code compliant repairs demonstrate a specific repair is readily achievable. Logically, the Court fails to see how reference to non-compliant repairs meet Plaintiff’s initial burden. The Court finds Plaintiff has not met her initial burden under Lopez, therefore the issue of waiver of the affirmative defense is moot. A triable issue of fact exists. Because the Court finds multiple triable issues of fact exists, the Court declines addressing other issues raised in the papers at this time. Defendant Villa Rita shall prepare and submit a form of order consistent with this ruling within two weeks.

2. 23CV02654 Feng, Zhu v. Xie, John et al.

EVENT: Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment and to Enter Another and Different Judgment (CCP 663 and 663a) and Motion to Correct Clerical Mistakes in the Judgment Entered March 5, 2026

Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Judgment and to Enter Another and Different Judgment (CCP 663 and 663a) and Motion to Correct Clerical Mistakes in the Judgment Entered March 5, 2026 is GRANTED in PART. The motion is granted with respect to the “Judgment is on the merits” language. It is well settled that statute of limitations dispositions are not merit dispositions. The motion is denied with respect to the alleged clerical errors. Plaintiff states “the Judgment misidentifies counsel by referring to defense counsel as though he were Plaintiff's counsel.” The Court is not finding that in the judgment. The judgment clearly states Plaintiff was in pro per. “Pro per” is a Latin phrase used to describe a person who is representing themselves in Court. The March 5, 2026 judgment is vacated. Counsel is directed to submit an amended judgment omitting the judgment on the merits language within 10 days of this order.

3|Page