Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV03335, Date: 2024-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03335    Hearing Date: July 11, 2024    Dept: 6

Plaintiff James Rutherford’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment 

Defendants: Harpreet S. Sandhu, as trustee of The Sandhu Family Trust, and Birinder K Sandhu, as trustee of The Sandhu Family Trust 

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 October 27, 2023, plaintiff James Rutherford (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Harpreet S. Sandhu, as trustee of The Sandhu Family Trust, and Birinder K Sandhu, as trustee of The Sandhu Family Trust (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 to 10, alleging one cause of action for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code § 51 et seq. 

On April 16, 2024, default was entered against Defendants. On May 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for 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 $9,394.09, including $8,000.00 in damages, $570.00 in attorney fees, and $824.09 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 January 25, 2023, and $4,000.00 for deterrence. (Compl., Prayer for Relief, ¶¶ 2-4; Summary of the Case, 2:14-20.) The complaint cites the case of Johnson v. Guedoir (E.D. Cal. 2016) 218 F.Supp.3d 1096 (Johnson) 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, ¶ 3.) However, the district 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.) Further, Plaintiff must identify a particular occasion on which the plaintiff was reasonably dissuaded from visiting the facility due to his actual knowledge of the violation. (Civ. Code, § 55.56(b).) Here, Plaintiff only provides evidence of one incident in this action that occurred on January 25, 2023. (Compl., ¶ 11; Rutherford Decl., ¶ 3.) 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. 

Moreover, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not complete items 4, 5, or 6 on Form CIV-100, or sign and date the signature block under those items. (Request for Entry of Default Judgment, ¶¶ 4-6; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a).) 

CONCLUSION           

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