Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV01667, Date: 2024-11-06 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: 23PSCV01667    Hearing Date: November 6, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT is DENIED without prejudice for two reasons: (1) individual defendant’s liability and (2) attorney fees.

Background

This is an ADA case based upon architectural barriers.

On June 2, 2023, Plaintiff Orlando Garcia filed his complaint against Main-Cortez Street One, an Arizona Limited Parternship and Helen B. Cortez.

On September 14, 2023, the court rejected the request for entry of default as to the entity because “Service on Secretary of State requires a court order.”

On April 22, 2024, the court again denied the request for entry of default for the same reason.

On August 18, 2024, default was entered against Helen Cortez.

On August 29, 2024, default was entered against the entity.

On September 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed an ‘Application to Have Attorney’s Fees Fixed by the Court [CCP 585(d) and Local Rule 3.214] – requesting fees in excess of default schedule and according to proof’ and other application material.

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks $10,106.64 in damages ($4,000 for statutory violations, $1,916.64 in costs, and $4,190 in attorney fees. The court finds the following two defects.

First, Plaintiff seeks liability against Helen B. Cortez, the owner of the real property at issue. (Price Decl., ¶5.) However, Plaintiff has not offered an analysis as to how Cortez by the mere fact as the owner of the property can be liable. Therefore, the court denies the application for this reason.

Second, Plaintiff’s Counsel seeks $4,190 in attorney fees. For one, Counsel has not provided a total number of hours expended on the matter. But reviewing the billing entries, the court finds 10 hours reasonable on such a matter. After all, the complaints are boilerplate (and nearly identical to others filed by the firm), the actions do not involve novel or difficult questions of law, and no discovery or other substantive measures were taken in the action. For similar reasons, the court finds the billing rates of $650/hour and $400 to be unreasonable. For cases such as this wherein much of the work can be done by associates (and was done by associates) who bill at $100/hour, the court reduces the hourly rate to $250. Therefore, the court will award $2,500 in attorney fees. 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing two defects, the application is denied without prejudice.