Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV00190, Date: 2025-04-03 Tentative Ruling
The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.
Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.
The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.
Case Number: 23PSCV00190 Hearing Date: April 3, 2025 Dept: O
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff’s
Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED, pending submission of a
revised proposed order deducting $4,000 as the court denies deterrence damages.
Background
This is a disability
rights action. Plaintiff Rebecca Castillo is a visually impaired and legally
blind individual.
On January 17,
2023, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for VIOLATIONS OF THE UNRUH CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 51 et seq (“UCRA”).
On March 28,
2023, default was entered against Defendant.
On September
19, 2023, Plaintiff filed an application for entry of default judgment, which
the court denied with prejudice.
On June 1,
2024, Plaintiff filed a FAC.
On January
16, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant application.
Discussion
Plaintiff seeks Plaintiff
$8,000.00 in statutory damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a), attorney’s
fees in the amount of $570.00, and costs in the amount of $504.00, for a total
amount of $9,074.00.
The court finds Plaintiff’s
declaration is insufficient to support a request for deterrence damages insofar
as there are no details to support how and why Plaintiff was deterred from
visiting the brick and mortar store, or the distance Plaintiff would have to
travel from her residence to the brick and mortar location. Plaintiff
conclusively states that she “intended to visit the nearest brick-and-mortar
location.” (Castillo Decl., p. 2.) To the extent Plaintiff cites to federal
cases, they are unbinding on this court.[1]
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the
application GRANTED, minus $4,000 in deterrence damages (total $5,074).
Plaintiff is to submit a new proposed order.
[1] The Unruh Civil Rights Act is a matter of
state law. And even if it was a federal issue, that is still not binding on
this court. (Alan v. Superior Court (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 217, 229 [“the
decisions of federal district and circuit courts, although entitled to great
weight, are not binding on state courts even as to issues of federal law.”].)