Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 22SMCV01951, Date: 2024-06-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22SMCV01951 Hearing Date: June 13, 2024 Dept: 205
HEARING DATE: June 13, 2024  | JUDGE/DEPT: Moreton/Beverly Hills, 205  | 
CASE NAME: Brian Whitaker v. Promenade Property LP CASE NUMBER: 23SMCV01450 
  | COMP. FILED: October 17, 2022 
  | 
PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT
MOVING PARTY: Brian Whitaker
RESPONDING PARTY: Promenade Property LP, Promenade Property LLC and Young Kim
BACKGROUND
This case arises from alleged violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the “Unruh Act”) and the California Disabled Persons Act. Plaintiff Brian Whitaker is substantially limited in his ability to walk. He is a quadriplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility.
On August 21, 2022, Plaintiff went to the Wetzel’s Pretzels Restaurant, which is located at 1403 3rd Street Promenade, Santa Monica, California (the “Property”). Defendants Promenade Property LP and Promenade Property LLC own the real property, and Young Kim owns the restaurant at the Property. Plaintiff claims the restaurant is not accessible to wheelchair users because there is no counter that was 36 inches or less in height and there was no level landing at the entrance and in front of the sales counter.
Plaintiff filed the Complaint on October 17, 2023 which seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant to provide wheelchair-accessible sales counters and paths of travel at the restaurant, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (or “ADAAG”). The Complaint also seeks damages under the Unruh Act including the statutory minimum of $4,000 per violation; and attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code section 52.
Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing Defendant Young Kim was substitute served on November 10, 2022 and Defendants Promenade Property LP and Promenade Property LLC were served personally through the California Secretary of State on July 19, 2023. Defendants were obligated to respond within 30 days. Defendants did not do so. Plaintiff successfully requested the entry of Defendants’ default, which was entered by the Clerk’s Office on September 6, 2023, September 18, 2023 and February 20, 2024. Plaintiff requested a default judgment on April 8, 2024. Plaintiff served Defendants by mail with both the Request for Entry of Default and Request for Default Judgment. Defendants have not appeared.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Default judgment against Defendants for a total of $13,081.98, which is comprised of: (1) $4,000 in statutory damages, (2) $7,660 in attorneys’ fees, and (3) $1,421.98 for costs. Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendants to provide accessible sales counters and paths of travel at the restaurant in compliance with the ADAAG.
ANALYSIS
Code of Civil Procedure section 585 sets forth the two options for obtaining a default judgment. First, where the plaintiff’s complaint¿seeks compensatory damages only, in a sum certain which is readily ascertainable from the allegations of the complaint or statement of damages, the clerk may enter the default judgment for that amount. However, if the relief requested in the complaint is more complicated, consisting of either nonmonetary relief, or monetary relief in amounts which require either an accounting, additional evidence, or the exercise of judgment to ascertain, the plaintiff must request entry of judgment by the court. In such cases, the plaintiff must affirmatively establish his entitlement to the specific judgment requested.¿ (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 287.) Section 585 also allows for interest, costs and attorney fees, where otherwise allowed by law. (Code of Civ. Proc. section 585(a).)
Multiple specific documents are required, such as: (1) form CIV 100, (2) a brief summary of the case; (3) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (4) interest computations as necessary; (5) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (CRC Rule 3.1800.)
Here, Plaintiff has properly complied with all the substantive and procedural requirements for a default judgment. Substantively, Plaintiff has stated a statutory basis for his claim for damages and attorneys’ fees. A memorandum of costs in the amount of $1,421.98 is set forth in Item 7 of the CIV-100 form. Plaintiff has filed a declaration in support of his request for attorneys’ fees. The fees are in excess of the default method for determining attorneys’ fees pursuant to Local Rule 3.214, but Plaintiff argues they are reasonable under the lodestar method.
A lodestar figure is calculated by multiplying the number of hours spent by a reasonable hourly rate. The hourly rates charged by Plaintiff’s counsel have been found reasonable by other courts. (See, e.g., Lindsay v. Grupo Glemka, 2:18-cv-05136-MRW (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2019).) However, there is no adequate explanation as to the amount of time spent (42.7 total hours, 21.4 hours by attorneys and 21.3 hours by paralegals). There are 7 attorneys and 17 paralegals who worked on the case. There is no reason why such a simple case requires this type of overstaffing. The Court will only award 10 hours of attorney time at an hourly rate of $400, and 10 hours of paralegal time at an hourly rate of $100, for a total of $5,000.
Otherwise, Plaintiff properly served Defendants more than 30 days prior to requesting entry of default and default judgment, correctly completed JC Form CIV-100 in a manner that would not void or put at issue the entry of default, provided a declaration of non-military status, dismissed all fictitious defendants, requested damages in amounts supported by the filings and not in excess of the amount stated in the Complaint, and filed a proposed judgment (JUD-100). As default has already been entered and there has been no appearance or filing whatsoever from Defendants, default judgment is appropriate here. ¿
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Brian Whitaker’s Request for Default Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Default judgment in the amount of $10,421.98 is awarded in favor of Plaintiff.