Johnson v. Top Investment Property LLC et al
Filing
27
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 8/16/2018 RECOMMENDING that Plaintiffs 23 motion for default judgment be granted; Judgment be entered against Top Investment Property LLC and Top Auto Repair, Inc.; Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these F & R's. (Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SCOTT JOHNSON,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
No. 2:15-cv-0181 TLN DB
v.
TOP INVESTMENT PROPERTY LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company;
TOP AUTO REPAIR, INC., a California
Corporation,
17
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendants.
18
This matter came before the undersigned on October 13, 2017, pursuant to Local Rule
19
20
302(c)(19), for hearing of plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. (ECF No. 24.) Attorney
21
Raymond Ballister appeared telephonically on behalf of the plaintiff. No appearance was made
22
by, or on behalf of, any defendant. At that time oral argument was heard and the motion was
23
taken under submission. In essence, plaintiff alleges defendants violated the American with
24
Disabilities Act. (ECF No.1).
Having considered all written materials submitted with respect to the motion, and after
25
26
hearing oral argument, the undersigned recommends that the motion for default judgment be
27
granted as explained below.
28
////
1
1
BACKGROUND
2
Plaintiff Scott Johnson initiated this action, through counsel, on January 23, 2015, by
3
filing a complaint and paying the required filing fee. (ECF No. 1). Therein, plaintiff alleges that
4
the defendants, Top Investment Property LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and Top
5
Auto Repair, Inc., a California Corporation, are the owners and operators of a business, Top Auto
6
Repair. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 1-2.1) Plaintiff further alleges that the premises and facilities of
7
“Top Auto Repair” failed to comply with Title III of the ADA, the California Unruh Civil Rights
8
Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act regarding discrimination on the basis of disability.
9
(Id. at 5-8.) The complaint also states a negligence cause of action. (Id. at 9.)
10
More than 180 days later, on July 24, 2015, the assigned District Judge issued an order for
11
plaintiff’s counsel to show cause as to why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to
12
serve the defendants within the time frame provided by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil
13
Procedure.2 (ECF No. 4.) On August 6, 2015, plaintiff filed applications for orders authorizing
14
service on defendants by hand-delivery to the California Secretary of State. (ECF Nos. 5 & 6.)
15
On August 10, 2015, plaintiff was authorized to serve defendants by hand-delivery to the
16
California Secretary of State. (ECF Nos. 8 & 9). Plaintiff filed proofs of service on September 8,
17
2015. (ECF Nos. 10 & 11).
On September 24, 2015, plaintiff requested entry of defendants’ default. (ECF Nos. 12 &
18
19
13). The Clerk entered defendants’ default on September 25, 2015. (ECF Nos. 14 & 15).
20
Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment on April 11, 2016, and was heard before the
21
previously assigned Magistrate Judge on May 26, 2016. (ECF Nos. 18-19). On May 27, 2016,
22
the previously assigned Magistrate Judge denied the motion without prejudice.3 (ECF No. 20.)
23
24
Page number citations such as this, are to the page number reflected on the court’s CM/ECF
system and not to page numbers assigned by the parties.
25
2
26
27
28
1
Rule 4(m) was amended Dec. 1, 2015, to reduce the time for service of a summons from 120
days to 90 days. For any civil case commenced and pending prior to Dec. 1, 2015, as here, the
parties have 120 days to serve their summons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
3
The matter was reassigned from the previously assigned Magistrate Judge to the undersigned on
August 2, 2016. (ECF No. 21.)
2
1
On September 13, 2017, plaintiff filed the motion for default judgment at issue here.
2
(ECF No. 23.) Notice of plaintiff’s motion was served on the defendants at the California
3
Secretary of State. (ECF No. 23-13.) At the motion hearing held on October 13, 2017, no
4
appearance was made on behalf of either defendant.
5
6
LEGAL STANDARDS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) governs applications to the court for default
7
judgment. Upon entry of default, the complaint’s factual allegations regarding liability are taken
8
as true, while allegations regarding the amount of damages must be proven. Dundee Cement Co.
9
v. Howard Pipe & Concrete Prods., 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th Cir. 1983) (citing Pope v. United
10
States, 323 U.S. 1 (1944); Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1977)); see also
11
DirectTV v. Huynh, 503 F.3d 847, 851 (9th Cir. 2007); TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826
12
F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987).
13
Where damages are liquidated, i.e., capable of ascertainment from definite figures
14
contained in documentary evidence or in detailed affidavits, judgment by default may be entered
15
without a damages hearing. Dundee, 722 F.2d at 1323. Unliquidated and punitive damages,
16
however, require “proving up” at an evidentiary hearing or through other means. Dundee, 722
17
F.2d at 1323-24; see also James v. Frame, 6 F.3d 307, 310-11 (5th Cir. 1993).
18
Granting or denying default judgment is within the court’s sound discretion. Draper v.
19
Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924-25 (9th Cir. 1986); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d. 1089, 1092 (9th Cir.
20
1980). The court is free to consider a variety of factors in exercising its discretion. Eitel v.
21
McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Among the factors that may be considered by
22
the court are
23
24
25
26
27
(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of
plaintiff’s substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4)
the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute
concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to
excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.
Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471-72 (citing 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 55-05[2], at 55-24 to 55-26).
28
3
1
2
3
ANALYSIS
I.
Appropriateness of the Entry of Default Judgment Under the Eitel Factors
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment seeks judgment on two of the four claims
4
presented in the complaint: a cause of action under Title III of the ADA, and a cause of action
5
under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. (Pl.’s MDJ (ECF No. 18-1) at 6-11.)
6
A.
Applicable Legal Standards under the ADA
7
“Congress enacted the ADA ‘to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards
8
addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities.’” Arizona ex rel. Goddard v.
9
Harkins Amusement Enterprises, Inc., 603 F.3d 666, 669 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 42 U.S.C. §
10
12101(b)(2)). “Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination in public accommodations, stating
11
that ‘[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal
12
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any
13
place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place
14
of public accommodation.’” Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond of California, LLC, 780 F.3d 1260,
15
1263 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir. 2007)).
16
With respect to an existing facility, discrimination includes “a failure to remove
17
architectural barriers . . . where such removal is readily achievable.” 42 U.S.C. §
18
12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). Removal is readily achievable where it is “easily accomplishable and able to
19
be carried out without much difficulty or expense.” 42 U.S.C. § 12181(9). “To prevail on a Title
20
III discrimination claim, the plaintiff must show that (1) she is disabled within the meaning of the
21
ADA; (2) the defendant is a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public
22
accommodation; and (3) the plaintiff was denied public accommodations by the defendant
23
because of plaintiff’s disability.” Molski, 481 F.3d at 730.
24
“Damages are not an available remedy to individuals under Title III of the ADA;
25
individuals may receive only injunctive relief.” Ervine v. Desert View Regional Medical Center
26
Holdings, LLC, 753 F.3d 862, 867 (9th Cir. 2014). “[A]n ADA plaintiff can establish standing to
27
sue for injunctive relief either by demonstrating deterrence, or by demonstrating injury-in-fact
28
coupled with an intent to return to a noncompliant facility.” Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.)
4
1
Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 944 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
2
B.
3
Here, the factual allegations of plaintiff’s complaint, taken as true pursuant to the entry of
4
Analysis
default against the defendants, establish the following.
5
Plaintiff is a C-5 quadriplegic who cannot walk and has significant manual dexterity
6
impairments, and requires the use of a wheelchair for mobility. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 1.)
7
Defendants own and operate the business “Top Auto Repair” located at or about 2916 Northgate,
8
Sacramento, California. (Id. at 2.) “Top Auto Repair” is a business establishment and place of
9
public accommodation. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff made a purchase at “Top Auto Repair” in August of
10
2014 and personally encountered numerous barriers to his ability to patronize the public service
11
establishment. (Id. at 4.)
12
Those barriers included, but are not limited to:
13
1.
No compliant handicapped parking space:
14
a.
Severely faded “wheelchair logo” (International Symbol of Accessibility),
15
b.
Lack of “NO PARKING” lettering on the access aisle,
16
c.
Lack of blue border around required access aisle,
17
d.
Lack of “Minimum Fine $250” signage,
18
e.
Lack of tow-away signage in the parking lot;
19
2.
The entry door hardware required tight grasping or twisting to operate;
20
3.
The countertop for customer transactions was well in excess of 36 inches in height;
21
4.
Non-compliant restroom fixtures and installations:
22
a.
The restroom mirror’s bottom edge was 49 inches above the floor;
23
b.
The restroom sink provided no knee clearance for wheelchair users;
24
c.
The toilet in the restroom was without grab bars;
25
d.
There was no clear floor space in front of the disposable toilet seat cover
26
dispenser.
27
(Id. at 3.)
28
////
5
Because of plaintiff’s knowledge of these barriers, he was deterred from patronizing “Top
1
2
Auto Repair” on several other occasions in 2014. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff experienced difficulty,
3
discomfort, and embarrassment due to the lack of accessible facilities at “Top Auto Repair”. (Id.)
4
As a consequence, plaintiff was denied full and equal access to facilities, privileges, and
5
accommodations offered by the defendants. (Id.)
6
7
A consideration of the Eitel factors favors granting default judgment for the reasons
outlined below. Eitel, 782 F.2d 1470 at 1471.
8
1.
Factor 1: The Possibility of Prejudice to Plaintiff
9
The first Eitel factor considers whether a plaintiff will suffer prejudice if a default
10
judgment is not entered. When a defendant has failed to appear and defend the claims, a plaintiff
11
will be without recourse and suffer prejudice unless default judgment is entered. Vogel v. Rite
12
Aid Corp., 992 F.Supp.2d 998, 1007 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (granting a default judgment for a disabled
13
plaintiff suing under the ADA and Unruh, relying upon this rationale). Here, the defendants have
14
failed to appear and defend against plaintiff’s claims of discrimination under the ADA and the
15
Unruh Act. Because plaintiff will suffer prejudice if plaintiff is without recourse against the
16
defendants in this case, this factor favors entry of a default judgment.
17
2.
18
Factors 2 & 3: The Merits and Sufficiency of Plaintiff’s Claims
The second and third Eitel factors require that a plaintiff state a claim on which they can
19
recover. Eitel, 782 F.2d 1470 at 1471. Here, plaintiff’s complaint pleads causes of action for
20
alleged violation(s) of the ADA, the Unruh Act, the CDPA, and negligence. (Compl. (ECF No.
21
1) at 5-9.) Plaintiff’s motion seeks default judgment on only the ADA claim and Unruh Act
22
claim. (Pl.’s MDJ (ECF No. 23) at 6-11.) Therefore, only these two claims will be evaluated
23
below.
24
25
a.
Standing Under Title III of the ADA
To invoke federal jurisdiction and the standing to sue, a disabled individual claiming
26
discrimination under the ADA must satisfy the case or controversy requirement of the U.S.
27
Constitution Art. III. Chapman, 631 F.3d at 946. In general, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1)
28
he has suffered an injury-in-fact, (2) that the injury is traceable to the defendant’s actions, and (3)
6
1
that the injury can be redressed by a favorable decision. Additionally, to establish standing to
2
pursue injunctive relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate a “real and immediate threat of repeated
3
injury” in the future. Id. An ADA plaintiff suffers an injury-in-fact either because discriminatory
4
architectural barriers deter him from returning to a facility or because they otherwise interfere
5
with his access to and “full and equal enjoyment” of the facility. Id. at 950. An ADA plaintiff
6
demonstrates a sufficient likelihood of future harm when he intends to return to a noncompliant
7
place of public accommodation where he will likely suffer repeated injury. Id. at 948.
8
Here, plaintiff’s motion for default judgment seeks injunctive relief compelling defendants
9
to remove the architectural barriers at defendants’ place of public accommodation, “Top Auto
10
Repair.” (Pl.’s MDJ. (ECF No. 23-1) at 11.) Plaintiff suffered from an injury-in-fact because
11
discriminatory architectural barriers deterred plaintiff from returning to “Top Auto Repair”, and
12
because the discriminatory architectural barriers interfered with plaintiff’s access to, and full and
13
equal enjoyment of, the “Top Auto Repair” premises. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 3-4.)
14
Plaintiff also demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of future harm because plaintiff
15
intended to return to the defendants’ service establishment, and because plaintiff would likely
16
suffer repeated injury when returning to the non-compliant premises. (Id.) The plaintiff lives just
17
ten minutes from “Top Auto Repair,” consistently frequents the general area, and will continue to
18
do so in the future. (Id.) “Top Auto Repair’s” architectural barriers were purportedly the cause
19
of the denial of access, and this was allegedly intentional on the part of the defendants. (Id.)
20
Finally, an award of injunctive relief would redress plaintiff’s injuries. Therefore, plaintiff has
21
established Article III standing to sue for injunctive relief under the ADA.
22
23
b.
Discrimination Under Title III of the ADA
To prevail on a Title III discrimination claim, (1) plaintiff must be disabled within the
24
meaning of the ADA; (2) defendant must be a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place
25
of public accommodation; and (3) plaintiff must have been denied public accommodations by
26
defendant because of their disability. Molski, 481 F.3d at 730.
27
Here, plaintiff Johnson meets all three elements to succeed on the Title III ADA claim,
28
based on the facts alleged in the complaint. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 3.) The term “disability”
7
1
with respect to an individual is defined as a physical (or mental) impairment that substantially
2
limits one or more major life activities of such individual. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A). Here,
3
plaintiff cannot walk and uses a wheelchair for mobility. (Id. at 1.) Therefore, plaintiff is
4
disabled within the meaning of the ADA.
Second, defendants are private entities who own and operate the business “Top Auto
5
6
Repair”, a service establishment. (Id. at 2.) Service establishments are expressly identified as
7
places of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(F). Therefore, “Top Auto Repair” is a
8
place of public accommodation and subject to Title III of the ADA.
9
Third, plaintiff was denied public accommodations by the defendants because of
10
plaintiff’s disability. In the present case, the alleged lack of accessible parking spaces, entry door
11
hardware, transaction counter, and restroom facilities were barriers to the plaintiff that prevented,
12
and continues to prevent, the full use and enjoyment of the public service establishment owned
13
and operated by defendants. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 3-4.)
14
A public accommodation that provides parking spaces to its patrons must reserve some
15
spaces for individuals with disabilities, and these spaces must be identified by a legible
16
International Symbol of Accessibility. 36 CFR Part 1191 App. D § 703.7.1. Here, plaintiff
17
alleges that accessible parking spaces were available at “Top Auto Repair”, but that they were
18
non-compliant with ADA regulations. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 3.) The failure to provide
19
properly designated, accessible parking spaces is a barrier, thus constituting discrimination. 4
20
ADAAG standards provide that handles, pulls, latches, locks, and other operable parts on
21
doors be operable with one hand and shall not require tight grasping, pinching or twisting of the
22
wrist. 36 CFR Part 1191 App. D § 309.4. Here, the door hardware at the entrance is a panel style
23
handle. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 3; ECF No. 23-6 at 4.) A panel style handle is a barrier for
24
disabled individuals, because it requires “the user to tightly grasp the handle to open the door.”
25
Wilson v. Pier 1 Imps. (US), Inc., 439 F. Supp. 2d 1054 at 1072 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (quoting ADA
26
Guide for Small Businesses at 8.) Thus, the presence of a panel style handle at the entrance of
27
28
4
Barriers are determined by reference to the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG).
Chapman, 631 F.3d 939 at 945. The ADAAG are listed in 36 CFR Part 1191 Appendix D.
8
1
“Top Auto Repair” constitutes discrimination.
2
ADAAG standards provide that counter surfaces for transactional purposes shall be 38
3
inches maximum above the floor. 36 CFR Part 1191 App. D § 904.3.2. Here, the transaction
4
counter was “well in excess of 36 inches in height”, over the 38 inch maximum limit. (Compl.
5
(ECF No. 1) at 3; ECF No. 23-6 at 4.) Thus, the inaccessible transaction counter constitutes
6
discrimination.
7
ADAAG standards state that where toilet facilities are provided, each public and common
8
use toilet room must be accessible. Specifically, mirrors located above countertops shall be
9
installed with the bottom edge of the reflecting surface a maximum of 40 inches above the
10
ground. 36 CFR Part 1191 App. D § 603.3. Here, the restroom mirror was mounted on the wall
11
so that its bottom edge is approximately 49 inches above the floor, in excess of the 40 inch
12
maximum limit. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 3; ECF No. 23-6 at 4.) In addition, restroom sink
13
countertops must have knee clearance at least 27 inches high, 30 inches wide, and 19 inches deep.
14
1 ADA: Public Accommodations § 5.04; 36 CFR Part 1191 App. D § 306.3. Here, the restroom
15
sink was a cabinet style sink without any knee clearance. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 3; ECF No. 23-
16
6 at 4.)
17
Moreover, grab bars must be installed in toilet facilities according to specifications
18
described in 36 CFR Part 1191 App. D § 609 in order to facilitate the transfer of a disabled
19
individual to the toilet. Here, there were no grab bars installed in the restroom whatsoever.
20
(Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 3; ECF No. 23-6 at 5.) ADAAG standards generally require that clear
21
floor or ground space (30 inches minimum by 48 inches minimum) shall be positioned for either a
22
forward or parallel approach to an operable element. 36 CFR Part 1191 App. D § 309.2. Here,
23
there was no clear floor space in front of the disposable toilet seat cover (an operable element)
24
because it was mounted on the wall behind the toilet. (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 3; ECF No. 23-6 at
25
5.) These inaccessible restroom features at “Top Auto Repair” are barriers that constitute
26
discrimination.
27
////
28
////
9
1
On information and belief, plaintiff alleges that the defendants’ failure to remove the
2
barriers was intentional because the barriers are “intuitive and obvious”, and because the
3
defendants exercised complete control over “Top Auto Repair’s” conditions. (Compl. (ECF No.
4
1) at 4.) Therefore, removal of these barriers was “readily achievable” by the defendants, and
5
defendants’ failure to do so constitutes discrimination under the ADA. 42 U.S.C. §
6
12182(b)(2)(A).
7
In sum, the complaint sufficiently alleges a Title III discrimination claim. Accordingly,
8
the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim and the sufficiency of the complaint weigh in favor of
9
granting default judgment.
10
11
b.
Discrimination Under the California Unruh Act
The California Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”) provides: “All persons within the
12
jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion,
13
ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are
14
entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all
15
business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b). Moreover, the
16
Unruh Act provides that a “violation of the right of any individual under the federal Americans
17
with Disabilities Act of 1990 shall also constitute a violation of this section.” Cal. Civ. Code §
18
51(f) (citation and footnote omitted).
19
As expressly provided by statute, a violation of the ADA also constitutes a violation of the
20
Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f); see also Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 46 Cal.4th 661, 664-65
21
(Cal. 2009). Here, because plaintiff’s complaint properly alleges a claim under the ADA,
22
plaintiff has also properly alleged facts supporting a claim under the Unruh Act. This factor
23
weighs in favor of a default judgment.
24
25
3.
Factor 4: The Sum of Money at Stake
Under this Eitel factor, the court “must consider the amount of money at stake in relation
26
to the seriousness of defendant’s conduct.” PepsiCo, Inc. v. California Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp.
27
2d 1172, 1176-77 (C.D. Cal. 2002). Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment seeks a grand total of
28
$16,500, which includes statutory damages under the Unruh Act corresponding to three
10
1
obstructed visits to “Top Auto Repair” ($4,000 minimum statutory damages per visit), in addition
2
to $4,500 in attorney fees and filing costs.). Although the requested statutory damages, attorney’s
3
fees, and costs are more closely scrutinized below, the undersigned does not find the overall sum
4
of money at stake to be so large or excessive as to militate against the entry of default judgment,
5
particularly when reduced for the reasons discussed below. The undersigned concludes that this
6
factor weighs in favor of a default judgment.
7
4.
The fifth Eitel factor “considers the possibility of dispute as to any material facts in the
8
9
Factor 5: The Possibility of Dispute
case. Upon entry of default, all well-pleaded facts in the complaint are taken as true, except those
10
relating to damages.” Pepsico, 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1177. Here, there appear to be no material
11
facts in dispute; therefore, this factor weighs in favor of a default judgment.
12
5.
Factor 6: The Possibility of Excusable Neglect
13
There is no indication in the record that defendants’ default was due to excusable neglect.
14
Defendants were properly served with plaintiff’s summons and complaint, with plaintiff’s request
15
for entry of default, and with plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. (ECF No. 2; ECF No. 10;
16
ECF No. 11; ECF No. 12; ECF No. 13; ECF No. 18.) Thus, the record suggests that defendants
17
have chosen not to defend themselves in this action, and that the default did not result from
18
excusable neglect. Accordingly, this Eitel factor favors the entry of a default judgment.
19
6.
20
Factor 7: Policy Favoring Decision on the Merits
This Eitel factor always weighs against default judgment, since a default judgment would
21
preclude a judgment on the merits. “Cases should be decided on their merits whenever
22
reasonably possible.” Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472. Although public policy generally favors the
23
resolution of a case on its merits, as here, a defendant’s failure to appear and defend against a
24
plaintiff’s claims makes a decision on the merits impossible. PepsiCo, Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2d at
25
1177.
26
7.
Summary of Eitel Factors
27
In sum, upon consideration of all the Eitel factors, the undersigned concludes that plaintiff
28
is entitled to a default judgment against defendants and recommends that such a default judgment
11
1
be entered. The undersigned therefore turns to plaintiff’s requested damages and injunctive relief.
2
II.
3
Terms Of Judgment To Be Entered
After determining that entry of default judgment is warranted, the court must next
4
determine the terms of the judgment. See Landstar Ranger, Inc. v. Parth Enterprises, Inc., 725
5
F.Supp.2d 916, 920 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (“If the court determines that the allegations in the
6
complaint are sufficient to establish liability, it must then determine the ‘amount and character’ of
7
the relief that should be awarded.”).
8
A.
Statutory Damages
9
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment seeks $12,000 in statutory damages. (Pl.’s MDJ.
10
(ECF No. 23-1) at 11.) “Unlike the ADA, the Unruh Act permits the recovery of monetary
11
damages, in the form of actual and treble damages or statutory damages of $4,000 per violation.”
12
Vogel, 992 F. Supp. 2d 998 at 1011. Plaintiff’s declaration states that he visited “Top Auto
13
Repair” in “August of 2014 and several other occasions in late 2014”, and was deterred from
14
further attempts to visit “Top Auto Repair” by the barriers that were encountered during his visit.
15
(Johnson Decl. (ECF 23-5) at 2-3.) Pursuant to California Civil Code § 55.56(b) “[a] plaintiff is
16
denied full and equal access only if the plaintiff personally encountered the violation on a
17
particular occasion, or the plaintiff was deterred from accessing a place of public accommodation
18
on a particular occasion.”
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment seeks an award for three statutory minimum
19
20
penalty assessments of $4,000 each—for $12,000 in total—for two visits in July 2014 and one
21
visit in August 2014. (Pl.’s MDJ. (ECF No. 23-1) at 11.) Neither plaintiff’s complaint nor
22
declaration, however, refer to any visits in July of 2014. When asked about this discrepancy at
23
the October 13, 2017 hearing, plaintiff’s counsel asked that the court simply award plaintiff
24
$4,000 for the August 2014 visit.
25
Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend plaintiff be awarded $4,000 in statutory
26
damages for the single documented visit to “Top Auto Repair” in August of 2014.
27
////
28
////
12
1
B.
Injunctive Relief
2
Under Title III of the ADA, individuals may only receive injunctive relief. Ervine, 753 F.
3
3d at 867; Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Damages are not recoverable
4
under Title III of the ADA -- only injunctive relief is available for violations of Title III.”).
5
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment seeks injunctive relief compelling the defendants to
6
comply with the ADA and the Unruh Act by remedying the architectural barriers that exist on the
7
premises of “Top Auto Repair”. (Pl.’s MDJ (ECF No. 23-1) at 6; Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 3.)
8
9
Having found that plaintiff both has standing and has established that defendants violated
the ADA, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief be granted,
10
and defendants be ordered to correct those architectural barriers at “Top Auto Repair” identified
11
in plaintiff’s complaint, to the extent defendants have the legal right to do so, so that the facility is
12
readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. See Vogel, 992 F. Supp. 2d at
13
1015 (“Injunctive relief compelling Knight to remove barriers at Rite Aid to the extent he has the
14
legal right to do so under the lease and state law so that the facility is readily accessible to and
15
usable by individuals with disabilities is therefore appropriate.”).
Attorneys’ Fees
16
C.
17
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment seeks an award of $4,500 in attorney fees.5 (Pl.’s
18
MDJ (ECF No. 23-1) at 11.) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205, a party that prevails on claims
19
brought under the ADA may recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in the court’s discretion.
20
The fee award is typically calculated using the lodestar method. Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp.,
21
244 F.3d 1145, 1149, n.4 (9th Cir. 2001).
“The ‘lodestar’ is calculated by multiplying the number of hours the prevailing party
22
23
reasonably expected on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin.,
24
Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983).
25
////
26
27
28
Plaintiff’s counsel’s argument in support of an award of attorney fees is that “it is inappropriate
to use the default fee schedule under Local Rule 55” in ADA cases. (ECF No. 23-1 at 14-15.)
There is neither a Local Rule 55 nor a default fee schedule in this district.
5
13
1
The lodestar is deemed to be presumptively reasonable, though the district court has the discretion
2
to consider an upward or downward adjustment. Camacho, 523 F.3d at 978.
3
4
1.
Reasonable Hourly Rates
In assessing applications for attorney’s fees the reasonable hourly rates are to be
5
calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant legal community. Blum v.
6
Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984); see also Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925, 928 (9th Cir.
7
2011) (“We have held that ‘[i]n determining a reasonable hourly rate, the district court should be
8
guided by the rate prevailing in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of
9
comparable skill, experience, and reputation.’”) (quoting Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796
10
F.2d 1205, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 1986)). It is also the general rule that the “relevant legal
11
community” is the forum district and that the local hourly rates for similar work should normally
12
be employed. See Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1205 (9th Cir. 2013); Prison
13
Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446, 454 (9th Cir. 2010); Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d
14
1439, 1449 (9th Cir. 1994); Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1405 (9th Cir. 1992).
15
Here, plaintiff’s counsel Mark Potter seeks an hourly billing rate of $350, which he claims
16
is a fair rate for attorneys with similar experience and expertise with ADA cases. (Potter Decl.
17
(ECF No. 23-4) at 4.) In support of this request, plaintiff’s counsel has submitted five exhibits of
18
fee awards ordered by judges in similar cases. (ECF Nos. 23-8, 23-9, 23-10, 23-11, 23-12.)
19
None of those judges, however, reside in the present forum (Eastern District of California).
20
Moreover, counsel’s declaration refers to “Johnson v. Bai,” in support of the assertion that
21
“[n]umerous federal and state court judges have approved my billing rate,” without providing a
22
citation. (Potter Decl. (ECF No. 23-4) at 4.)
23
Accordingly, at the October 13, 2017, hearing the undersigned informed plaintiff’s
24
attorney, Raymond Ballister, that no citation was provided for attorney Potter’s reference to
25
Johnson v. Bai, and that the Johnson v. Bai opinion found by the undersigned did not support
26
attorney Potter’s assertion that a recent Eastern District case approved attorney Potter’s requested
27
billing rate of $350 per hour. See Johnson v. Xinliang Bai, CIV. NO. 2:16-1698 WBS GGH,
28
2017 WL 3334006, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2017) (“the court finds that the reasonable rates are
14
1
$300 for Potter, $250 for Grace, and $150 for Price and Gunderson”). The undersigned asked
2
attorney Ballister if counsel could provide the court with a citation to the case referred to by
3
attorney Potter. Attorney Ballister answered that such citation could not be provided without
4
additional legal research. The undersigned then asked attorney Ballister to address the
5
determination of a reasonable hourly rate. Attorney Ballister stated that a reasonable hourly rate
6
would be $250 per hour and amended plaintiff’s requested attorney hourly rate to $250 per hour.
7
(ECF No. 26 at 2.)
8
The undersigned finds plaintiff’s amended requested rate of $250 per hour to be
9
reasonable. See Johnson v. Patel, No. 2:15-cv-2298 MCE EFB, 2017 WL 999462, at *3 (E.D.
10
Cal. Mar. 15, 2017) (“No evidence has been presented in this proceeding that causes this Court to
11
conclude that the prevailing Sacramento rate of $250-$300 as recently as two years ago has
12
measurably increased.”); Loskot v. D & K Spirits, LLC, No. 2:10-cv-0684 WBS DAD, 2011 WL
13
567364, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2011) (citing Eastern District ADA cases resolved on default
14
judgment where $250 was determined to be the reasonable rate).
15
2.
Hours Reasonably Expended
16
A prevailing party is entitled to compensation for attorney time “reasonably expended on
17
the litigation.” Webb v. Board of Educ. of Dyer County, 471 U.S. 234, 242 (1985) (emphasis in
18
original). The attorney’s fee applicant bears the burden of establishing the appropriate number of
19
hours expended. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437; see also Jadwin v. County of Kern, 767 F.Supp.2d
20
1069, 1100 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (“The fee applicant bears the burden of documenting the appropriate
21
hours expended in the litigation and must submit evidence in support of those hours worked.”).
22
Time is reasonably expended on the litigation when it is “useful and of a type ordinarily
23
necessary to secure the final result obtained from the litigation.” Pennsylvania v. Delaware
24
Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 561 (1986) (citation and internal quotations
25
omitted). “‘Hours expended on unrelated, unsuccessful claims should not be included in an
26
award of fees.’” Webb v. Sloan, 330 F.3d 1158, 1168 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Sorenson v. Mink,
27
239 F.3d 1140, 1147 (9th Cir. 2001)).
28
////
15
“Counsel for the prevailing party should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee
1
2
request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private
3
practice ethically is obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley, 461 U.S.
4
at 434; see also Jankey v. Poop Deck, 537 F.3d 1122, 1132 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Consequently,
5
although the district court erred in considering Plaintiff’s protraction of the litigation in deciding
6
whether to deny fees, the court may consider whether Plaintiff protracted the litigation in deciding
7
whether to reduce fees.”); Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008)
8
(“The number of hours to be compensated is calculated by considering whether, in light of the
9
circumstances, the time could reasonably have been billed to a private client.”); Van Gerwen v.
10
Guarantee Mut. Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A district court should exclude
11
from the lodestar amount hours that are not reasonably expended because they are excessive,
12
redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.”).
“‘[W]hen faced with a massive fee application the district court has the authority to make
13
14
across-the-board percentage cuts either in the number of hours claimed or in the final lodestar
15
figure as a practical means of excluding non-compensable hours from a fee application.’”
16
Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Gates, 987 F.2d at
17
1399). “[T]he district court can impose a small reduction, no greater than 10 percent—a
18
‘haircut’—based on its exercise of discretion and without a more specific explanation.” Moreno,
19
534 F.3d at 1112. “In all other cases, however, the district court must explain why it chose to cut
20
the number of hours or the lodestar by the specific percentage it did.” Gonzalez, 729 F.3d at
21
1203.
22
Here, plaintiff’s counsel states that “a total of 11.6 hours of time” was spent on this case.
23
(Potter Decl. (ECF No. 23-4) at 3.) The undersigned finds 11.6 hours to be a reasonable amount
24
of time to spend on a case of this nature. See, e.g., Trujillo v. Ali, Case No. 1:16-cv-0694 LJO
25
SKO, 2016 WL 6902313, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016) (roughly 25 hours expended through
26
filing of motion for default judgment); Johnson v. Lababedy, No. 2:16-cv-0126 KJM AC, 2016
27
WL 4087061, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016) (9.2 hours expended through filing of motion for
28
default judgment); Loskot v. D & K Spirits, LLC, No. 2:10-cv-0684 WBS DAD, 2011 WL
16
1
567364, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2011) (17.3 hours expended through filing of motion for default
2
judgment).
3
D.
Costs
4
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment seeks costs in the amount of $440. (ECF Nos. 23-
5
1 at 11, and 23-4 at 3.) “Both the Unruh Act and the ADA authorize a prevailing plaintiff to
6
recover . . . costs.” Vogel, 992 F. Supp. 2d at 1016 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12205; Cal. Civ. Code §
7
52(a)). Therefore, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff be awarded $440 in costs.
8
Accordingly, the undersigned will recommend that plaintiff be awarded $2,900 in
9
attorney’s fees and costs, based on an hourly rate of $250 for 11.6 hours, along with $440 in filing
10
fees and costs.
11
CONCLUSION
12
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
13
1. Plaintiff’s September 13, 2017 motion for default judgment (ECF No. 23) be granted;
14
2. Judgment be entered against the defendants, Top Investment Property LLC and Top
15
Auto Repair, Inc.;
16
3. Defendants be ordered to pay $4,000 in statutory damages;
17
4. Defendants be ordered to correct the violations at the “Top Auto Repair” identified in
18
plaintiff’s complaint, to the extent that the defendants have the legal right to do so, so that the
19
facility is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;
20
5. Defendants be ordered to pay plaintiff $2,900 in attorneys’ fees;
21
6. Defendants be ordered to pay plaintiff $440 in costs; and
22
7. This case be closed.
23
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
24
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14)
25
days after these findings and recommendations are filed, any party may file written objections
26
with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate
27
Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed
28
within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections.
17
1
The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may, under
2
certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst,
3
951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
4
Dated: August 16, 2018
5
6
7
8
9
10
DLB:E(ab)
DB\orders\orders.civil\johnson0181.mdj.f&rs.ab
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?