Carpenter v. Leung CA2/8

Filed 11/6/14 Carpenter v. Leung CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

DONNA KAY CARPENTER, as B252083 Successor in Interest, (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. GC048260)

v.

ROBERT LEUNG,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jan A. Pluim, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Frailey & Associates and Dale C. Frailey for Defendant and Appellant.

Center for Disability Access and Dennis Price for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

The court entered a judgment in favor of Jon Richards Carpenter based on a violation of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) Robert Leung challenges the judgment on evidentiary grounds, but fails to demonstrate any error. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURE On October 17, 2011, Carpenter sued Leung, alleging violations of the ADA, Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Disabled Persons Act and stating a cause of action for negligence. Carpenter alleged that he was quadriplegic and required use of a wheelchair for mobility. According to the complaint, Leung owned a shopping center in Rosemead California. Carpenter alleged that Leung failed to provide any van-accessible parking space with an eight-foot access aisle. In his trial brief, Carpenter argued that Leung provided three handicap parking spaces but none was van accessible. Carpenter argued that Leung was required to provide at least one compliant van-accessible parking spot. At trial, Carpenter testified that he was quadriplegic and needed the assistance of a wheelchair. He drove a minivan that was modified for wheelchair use. On July 6, 2011, he went to a retail complex located at 8632 Valley Boulevard and tried to park his car. There was not enough space for his ramp to deploy. The parking space did not have an eight-foot ramp. In his defense, Leung sought to admit a picture of the parking lot in the back of the building. Carpenter’s attorney objected arguing that the picture had not been produced during discovery. After Carpenter’s counsel explained the discovery violation including the request for production and the motion to compel, the court sustained Carpenter’s objection to the evidence. The court limited Leung to asking about the parking space in the front of the building. The court explained that “[t]he only complaint is about the parking space in front . . . . The plaintiff is not claiming that there was any other violation . . . .” The court further explained that the parking spot in the front of the building was too small and it was not a defense that defendant had a parking spot in the back of the building. The court stated it’s not reasonable “for a handicapped person to