Department 78, Stanley Mosk Courthouse

April 18, 2024 

23STCV21992

OSC Re: Dismissal of Defendant for Failure to Obtain Default Judgment

DECISION

Plaintiff must file a fully completed CIV-100.

This matter is continued to May 6, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.

Plaintiff is ordered to file the amended CIV-100 at least five court days in advance of the OSC date.

Plaintiff to provide notice.

Discussion

Plaintiff requests default judgment as follows. 

Damages Awarded $8,000

Costs $504

Attorney Fees Awarded $570

Total $9,074

This is an action for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff alleges that he is blind and was denied the full use and enjoyment of Defendant’s website due to accessibility barriers on the website. These barriers deterred Plaintiff from visiting Defendant’s restaurant.

10/13/2023 Default Entered

4/12/2024 Doe Dismissal Entered

Analysis: 

Items 4-6 of form CIV-100 are blank. Additionally, the signature declaring under penalty of perjury that these items are correct is missing.

Plaintiff seeks $8,000 in damages for four instances of discrimination under Civ. Code, section 52(a). 

“[W]here a plaintiff can prove that violations of applicable California disability access standards deterred her on a particular occasion from attempting to attend a place of public accommodation, that plaintiff states a claim for relief under California Civil Code § 54.1 and § 51 and, in particular, for damages, under § 54.3 and § 52.” (Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. (1994) 866 F.Supp. 433, 439.)

Plaintiff testifies that in August 2023, he attempted to access Defendant’s website and encountered access barriers, such as incorrect labels, a lack of alternative text, a lack of descriptive text, an inaccessible sign-up system, and an inaccessible menu. (Cotto Decl., ¶¶3-11.) Plaintiff was unable to place an order from the website. (Id., ¶12.) Thereafter, Plaintiff was deterred from visiting Defendant’s brick and mortar location. (Id., ¶13.) Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that he reviews menus before visiting restaurants, so he is not dependent on sighted assistance. (Compl., ¶38.) Because he is unable to review the menu, the access barriers continue to deter Plaintiff from visiting Defendant’s brick and mortar location. (Id.)

Plaintiff has adequately shown he was deterred from accessing Defendant’s website and Defendant’s restaurant. Because these constitute two separate instances of deterrence, Plaintiff is entitled to $8,000 for two violations of disability access standards.

Plaintiff also seeks $570 in attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees are authorized under Civ. Code, §52(a). Attorney’s fees on default, if they are authorized by promissory note, contract, or statute, are typically awarded under LASC Local Rule 3.214(a). 

Local Rule of the Court, rule 3.214(a) provides, in relevant part: 

When a promissory note, contract, or statute provides for the recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees, the following schedule will apply to the amount of the new judgement unless otherwise determined by the court. Default case: 

$0.01 to $1,000, 15% with a minimum of $75.00; 

$1,000.01 to $10,000, $150 plus 6% of the excess over $1,000; 

$10,000.01 to $50,000, $690 plus 3% of the excess over $10,000; 

$50,000.01 to $100,000, $1,890 plus 2% of the excess over $50,000; 

Over $100,000, $2,890 plus 1% of the excess over $100,000.

Here, the calculation is as follows $150 + $(0.06 x 7,000) = $570. Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is properly calculated 

Plaintiff seeks to recover costs for filing fees and process server’s fees. These costs are allowable.

The Unruh Act provides for permanent and preliminary injunctive relief. ““A request for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order against the person or persons responsible for the conduct, as the complainant deems necessary to ensure the full enjoyment of the rights described in this section.” (Civil Code § 52(c)(3).)

As discussed above, Plaintiff provides sufficient evidence that he was deterred from accessing Defendant’s website and restaurant due to his disability in violation of Civ. Code, section 52(a). Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to preventative relief such as an injunction. The request for an injunction is granted.