Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV03859, Date: 2024-07-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV03859 Hearing Date: July 25, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff
Rebecca Castillo’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendant: Big Al’s LLC
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is an ADA/Unruh case. On December 13, 2023, plaintiff Rebecca Castillo (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Big Al’s LLC (Defendant) and Does 1 to 10, alleging one cause of action for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. On February 6, 2024, default was entered against Defendant. On June 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default judgment.
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 $9,074.00, including $8,000.00 in damages, $570.00 in attorney fees, and $504.00 in costs. The Court finds Plaintiff’s damage request is excessive.
Plaintiff 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 in deterrence damages plus $4,000.00 for encountering the barriers,
for a total demand of $8,000.00. (Compl., Prayer for Relief, ¶¶ 5-6; Summary of
the Case, 2:1-8.) Johnson does not support this outcome. The court in Johnson
found $8,000.00 in statutory damages was warranted based on two incidents
wherein the plaintiff was deterred on one date and then personally encountered
the barriers on a different date. (Johnson, supra, 218 F.Supp.3d at p.
1100.)
Here, Plaintiff states that she attempted to access Defendant’s
goods and services on November 8, 2023. (Castillo Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff
then confusingly states that she was deterred from visiting Defendant’s
brick-and-mortar location in Ontario on November 2, 2023 and November 8, 2023.
(Castillo Decl., ¶ 14.) It is unclear how Plaintiff was deterred on November 2,
2023 before she visited the website on November 8, 2023. (See Castillo Decl.,
¶¶ 5, 14, Ex. 1.) Additionally, Plaintiff’s browsing history only shows her having
attempted to visit Defendant’s website on November 8, 2023. (Castillo Decl.,
Ex. 1.) At most, the Court finds evidence of one violation on November 8, 2023,
which adds up to $4,000.00, not $8,000.00.
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.
Additionally, Plaintiff did not complete items 4, 5, or 6 of
Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 585.5, 587; Bus. &
Prof. Code, § 6400 et seq.)
CONCLUSION