Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV02662, Date: 2025-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV02662    Hearing Date: February 10, 2025    Dept: 6

Plaintiff James Rutherford’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment 

Defendants: SBZ Industry Investment, Inc. and Valley Nogales Association 

TENTATIVE RULING           

Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.           

BACKGROUND

This is an ADA/Unruh Civil Rights Act case. On August 29, 2023, plaintiff James Rutherford (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant SBZ Industry Investment, Inc. (SBZ) and Does 1 to 10, alleging one cause of action for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code § 51 et seq. On March 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Doe amendment naming Valley Nogales Association (Valley) as a defendant. Valley and SBZ may collectively referred to as “Defendants.”

On October 10, 2023, default was entered against SBZ.[1] On May 29, 2024, default was entered against Valley.

On December 6, 2024, Plaintiff requested entry of default judgment against Defendants.

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) declaration of nonmilitary status; (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 Code of Civil Procedure section 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.) 

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $10,153.00, including $8,000.00 in damages, $570.00 in attorney fees, and $1,583.00 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 15, 2023, and $4,000.00 for deterrence. (Summary of the Case, 2:3-6.) However, Plaintiff is not entitled to both occurrence and deterrence damages arising from the same single incident. In Johnson v. Guedoir (E.D. Cal. 2016) 218 F.Supp.3d 1096 (Johnson), the district court 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 presented evidence of the initial encounter. (See Rutherford Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff presented no evidence of having attempted to visit the subject property again on a later occasion. (See generally, Rutherford Decl.) Plaintiff did not even present evidence of having attempted to determine or confirm whether Defendants tried to bring the subject property into compliance. (See generally, Rutherford Decl.) 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.)

Additionally, Plaintiff did not complete item 4 on Form CIV-100 regarding document assistance. (CIV-100, ¶ 4.)

CONCLUSION           

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.