Department 58

Hearing Date: June 29, 2023

Case Name: Orlando Garcia v. Blanca Beatriz Reyes

Case No.: 23STCV00838

Matter: Default Judgment prove-up

Moving Party: Plaintiff Orlando Garcia

Responding Party: Unopposed

Tentative Ruling: The request for default judgment is denied.

Background and procedural history

This is a construction-related accessibility case. Plaintiff Orlando Garcia sued Defendant Bianca Beatriz Reyes as the alleged owner of El Chele Market, located at 2708 W. 7th St., Los Angeles, California, asserting one cause of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and a second cause of action for violation of the California Disabled Persons Act. The complaint alleges Plaintiff went to the El Chele market on October 6, 2022, and the store failed to comply with ADA Standards by having paths of travel less than 36 inches in width.

Plaintiff is a high-frequency litigant who has filed approximately 240 lawsuits in the preceding year alleging violations of construction-related accessibility standards.

Default was entered against Defendant on April 7, 2023. Plaintiff’s complaint did not identify Doe Defendants. On May 18, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to submit a default packet for entry of judgment by June 15, 2023. Plaintiff seeks a default money judgment of $10,262.41.

Discussion

A party seeking a default judgment “must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Application to Enter Default) (form CIV-100), unless the action is subject to the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, Civil Code section 1788.50 et seq., in which case the party must use mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Fair Debt Buying Practices Act) (form CIV-105).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a).) “The following must be included in the documents filed with the clerk: (1) Except in unlawful detainer cases, a brief summary of the case identifying the parties and the nature of plaintiff's claim; (2) Declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) Interest computations as necessary; (4) A memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) A declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant against whom judgment is sought; (6) A proposed form of judgment; (7) A dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) Exhibits as necessary; and (9) A request for attorney fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.” (Id. Rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(1)-(9).)

On May 5, 2023 Plaintiff filed all the necessary paperwork.

Plaintiff seeks $4,000. Plaintiff has shown no actual damages. The complaint prays for “treble actual damages and a statutory minimum of $4,000 or $1,000 respectively per violation….” The complaint alleges one violation: that paths of travel in Defendant’s store were too narrow. Under Civil Code section 54.3, subdivision (a), the Court will award damages in the total amount of $1,000.

Plaintiff’s proposed judgment (filed on JUD-100) and Plaintiff’s request for court judgment (filed on CIV-100) seek $1787.41 in costs. Plaintiff’s memorandum of costs (Item 7 of CIV-100) lists $200 in “Investigator Fees.” However, investigator fees are not allowable as costs under Section 1032. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(a).) In fact, “[i]nvestigation expenses in preparing the case for trial” are not allowable as costs. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(b).) Accordingly, the amount allowable for costs is $1,587.41.

In addition, the Court finds Plaintiff’s requested attorney fees of $4,475 to be excessive. It is not clear why so many hours were billed towards prefiling investigation at the partner rate of $650/hour considering Plaintiff is a high-frequency litigant and the complaint in this action is a form. It does not appear that not more than eight lines of the complaint are unique in the entire seven-page pleading. Moreover, the expenditure of more than seven hours on preparing the default judgment package is unreasonable.

In any event, under Los Angeles County Court Rule 3.214(a) the appropriate attorney fee for a $1,000 judgment is $150.00

In summary, the Court awards a default judgment to Plaintiff Orlando Garcia, and against Defendant Blanca Reyes in the total amount of $2,737.41.