Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 24PSCV01607, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV01607, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV01607 Hearing Date: February 6, 2025 Dept: 6

Plaintiff James Rutherford’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment

Defendants: Pete Chinn, Margarett Chinn

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The Court hereby VACATES the default entered against Defendant Pete Chinn on July 2, 2024.

BACKGROUND

This is an ADA/Unruh Civil Rights Act case. On May 20, 2024, plaintiff James Rutherford (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Pete Chinn, Margaret Chinn (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 July 2, 2024, default was entered against Defendants. On December 4, 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 $10,114.00, including $8,000.00 in damages, $570.00 in attorney fees, and $1,544.00 in costs. The Court finds multiple problems with Plaintiff’s default judgment request. First, default was entered prematurely against Defendant Pete Chinn. The proof of service indicates he was served by substitute service on June 3, 2024. (Proof of Service (6/4/24).) This means Pete Chinn had until July 15, 2024, to file a responsive pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b); Tsakos Shipping & Trading, S.A. v. Juniper Garden Town Homes, Ltd. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 74, 85 [substitute service complete 10th day after mailing].) The Court will therefore vacate the entry of default against Defendant Pete Chinn.

Second, 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 April 14, 2024, and $4,000.00 for deterrence. (Summary of the Case, 2:11-14.) 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. The Court hereby VACATES the default entered against Defendant Pete Chinn on July 2, 2024.