Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22PSCV00804, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22PSCV00804 Hearing Date: March 1, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff James Rutherford’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendants: Rodolfo Gomez and Ana E. Gomez
COURT RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. . Plaintiff may submit additional evidence addressing the issues identified by the Court or submit a new proposed Judgment for the amounts stated in this ruling.
BACKGROUND
This is an ADA/Unruh Civil Rights Act case. On August 1, 2022, plaintiff James Rutherford (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Emiliano’s Restaurant Inc. (Emiliano’s), Rodolfo Gomez (Rodolfo), Ana. E. Gomez (Ana), and Does 1 to 10, alleging one cause of action for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code § 51 et seq. On December 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Doe amendment naming Grande Steel Hesperia, Inc. (Grande) as a Defendant. On March 9, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed Emiliano’s from this action. On November 21, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed Grande from this action.
On December 13, 2022, default was entered against Defendants Rodolfo and Ana. On November 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default judgment against Rodolfo and Ana.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has failed to timely respond or appear. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585.) A party seeking judgment on the default by the court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (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 proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (7) exhibits as necessary; and (8) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.)
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $10,143.00, including $8,000.00 in damages, $0.00 in interest, $570.00 in attorney fees, and $1,573.00 in costs. The Court finds Plaintiff has submitted insufficient evidence to support Plaintiff’s claim for $8,000.00 in damages. Plaintiff seeks $4,000.00 for the occurrence of the underlying incident in this action on June 24, 2022 and $4,000.00 for deterrence. (Compl., Prayer for Relief, ¶¶ 3-4.) Plaintiff cites the case of Johnson v. Guedoir (E.D. Cal. 2016) 218 F.Supp.3d 1096 as the basis for requesting $4,000.00 as deterrence damages in addition to the $4,000.00 for the underlying incident. (Compl., Prayer for Relief, ¶ 4.) However, the court in Johnson awarded $4,000.00 for deterrence based on the initial incident and then $4,000.00 for personally encountering the access violations on a later date. (Johnson, supra, 218 F.Supp.3d at p. 1100.) Here, Plaintiff only provides evidence of one incident in this action that occurred on June 24, 2022. (Compl., ¶ 13; Rutherford Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff does not provide any evidence that the alleged violations continued, and that Plaintiff had knowledge of such continued violations. "So long as the discriminatory conditions continue, and so long as a plaintiff is aware of them and remains deterred, the injury under the ADA continues." (Civil Rights Educ. & Enforcement Ctr. v. Hosp. Properties Trust, 867 F.3d 1093, 1099.) Therefore, Plaintiff is at most entitled to $4,000.00 in damages. (Civ. Code § 52, subd. (a).)
The Court also finds that, based on the reduced damage calculation, Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees must also be reduced. (Local Rule 3.214.) The Court finds the correct amount of attorney fees that Plaintiff can recover here is $330.00.
Plaintiff also failed to submit sufficient evidence that the court costs were paid. Plaintiff submitted a Notice of Full Payment of Fees Required showing an unpaid balance of $1,000.00. (Manning Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. 2.) Plaintiff did not submit any evidence showing that such balance has been paid.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. . Plaintiff may submit additional evidence addressing the issues identified by the Court or submit a new proposed Judgment for the amounts stated in this ruling.