Barrette v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

Full title: KEN BARRETTE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

Date published: May 7, 2009

2d Civil B202606 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 7, 2009)

Opinion

KEN BARRETTE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. 2d Civil B202606 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Sixth DivisionMay 7, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Santa Barbara County Super. Ct. No. 1196073

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on April 16, 2009, be modified as follows:

On page 4, at the end of paragraph 4 after the Pickern cite, add footnote 2 which states:

In its petition for rehearing Costco argues that Barrett lacks standing because there were other ADA compliant parking spaces near the store entrance. Mary Barrette testified that the spaces were adequately striped but not wide enough for the Barrette's van life because "he can't get out of the three foot striped area." The trial court did not err in finding that Barrett was denied equal access to the marked handicapped van accessible parking space at the tire center. (See e.g., Botosan v. Paul McNally Realty (9th Cir.2000) 216 F.3d 827, 835.) The cases relied upon by Costco are inapposite and involve plaintiffs who chose to park in general parking spaces rather than a handicapped accessible parking space. (Urhausen v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 254, 258-259; Harris v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (S. D. Cal. 2005) 389 F.Supp.2d 1244, 1249-1250.)

Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.