25.  As a result of Defendant’s policies and practices with regard to curb ramps in the City’s  pedestrian right of way, people with mobility disabilities have been discriminated against and denied  full and equal access to the benefits of the City’s pedestrian right of way program or service, and to  facilities in which City programs, services, and activities are made available to the public.   36.  Plaintiff Artie Lashbrook has lived in the City of San Jose since the late 1960s, and has  used a wheelchair since approximately 2011.  Plaintiff experienced numerous barriers to access and  unsafe conditions while attempting to use curb ramps within the City of San Jose, including missing  and non-compliant curb ramps.   37.  Over the years, Plaintiff has encountered hundreds of locations in various  neighborhoods where curb ramps in the City’s pedestrian right of way are either missing or  inaccessible.  Plaintiff Lashbrook resided for several years near the intersection of Monterey Road and  Edenview Drive.  Plaintiff’s ability to navigate the pedestrian right of way in his own neighborhood  was severely hampered by the lack of accessible curb ramps throughout the pedestrian right of way,  including three non-compliant curb ramps at the northeast, southeast, and southwest corners of the  intersection of Monterey Road and Edenview Drive.  He also encountered a non-compliant curb ramp  at the southeast corner of Monterey Road and Roeder Road.  Given that these non-compliant curb  ramps were adjacent to Mr. Lashbrook’s home, he had no option but to encounter these ramps when he  left his home to engage in his community.   38.  Since August 2017, Plaintiff has lived in the Mt. Pleasant neighborhood.  There, he  encountered two missing curb ramps at the intersection of Mt. Palomar Drive and Mt. Vista Drive, and  two missing curb ramps at the intersection of Mt. Vista Drive and Mt. Herman Drive.  Those corners  lacked curb ramps until approximately June 2018.  Plaintiff continues to encounter missing curb ramps  at the intersections of Mt. Palomar Drive and Mt. Hood Way, Mr. Palomar Drive and Mt. McKinley  Drive, and Mt. McKinley Drive and White Road.   42.  Plaintiff brings this action individually, and on behalf of all persons with mobility  disabilities who use or will use the pedestrian right of way in the City of San Jose, as a class action  under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   52.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the foregoing  paragraphs.   53.  Title II of the ADA provides in pertinent part: “[N]o qualified individual with a  disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits  of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such  entity.”  42 U.S.C. § 12132.   68.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the foregoing  paragraphs.   69.  Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides in pertinent part: “[N]o  otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be  excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under  any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance . . .”  29 U.S.C. § 794(a).   70.  Plaintiff is otherwise qualified to participate in the services, programs, or activities that  are provided to individuals in the City.  See 29 U.S.C. § 794(b).    71.  The City is a direct recipient of federal financial assistance sufficient to invoke the  coverage of Section 504 and has received such federal financial assistance at all times relevant to the  claims asserted in this Complaint.   77.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the foregoing  paragraphs.   78.  Section 11135(a) of the California Code provides in pertinent part: “No person in the  State of California shall, on the basis of . . . disability, be unlawfully denied the benefits of, or be  unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity that is funded by the state or  receives any financial assistance from the state.”   California Government Code § 11135   Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973  29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.   Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990   42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.  