Camarillo v. Carrols Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that under Title III a public accommodations failure to train can constitute a violation of the ADA
• stating that a plaintiff must allege “more than mere rudeness or insensitivity, and more than one or two isolated mistakes”
• explaining that restaurants are not required to provide large 7 print menus so long as they ensure the menu is effectively communicated
• finding that a plaintiff “cannot experience ‘full and equal enjoyment’ of [a] defendant[’s] services if she is unable to access the list of the services available to her”
• holding plaintiff had standing where “(1) she has alleged past injury under the ADA . .. ; (2) it is reasonable to infer from her complaint that this discriminatory treatment will continue; and (3
• holding it was “reasonable to 10 infer, based on the past frequency of her visits and the proximity of defendants’ restaurants to her 11 home, that Camarillo intends to return to these restaurants in the future”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).