Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 24PSCV03314, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV03314, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV03314 Hearing Date: February 26, 2025 Dept: 6

Plaintiff Orlando Garcia’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment

Defendant: Haat Investments, LLC

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $5,424.58. If Plaintiff submits on the Tentative Ruling, the Court directs Plaintiff to submit a revised proposed judgment consistent with the Court’s ruling herein for the Court’s review and signature. If the new proposed default judgment is signed, no appearance is necessary.

BACKGROUND

This is an ADA/Unruh Civil Rights Act case. On October 3, 2024, plaintiff Orlando Garcia (Plaintiff) filed this action against Haat Investments, LLC (Defendant) and Does 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and violation of the California Disabled Persons Act.

On November 20, 2024, default was entered against Defendant.

On December 17, 2024, Plaintiff requested 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 $7,203.08, including $4,000.00 in damages, $2,425.00 in attorney fees, and $778.08 in costs. The Court finds Plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to support the amount of damages requested, but finds Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees excessive and that Plaintiff included improper items in the request for costs.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $450.00 reasonable. (Price Decl., ¶ 9.) “The courts repeatedly have stated that the trial court is in the best position to value the services rendered by the attorneys in his or her courtroom [citation], and this includes the determination of the hourly rate that will be used in the lodestar calculus. [Citation.]” (569 E. Cnty. Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 436–437.) However, the Court takes issue with the following entries on Plaintiff’s counsel’s fee bill:

- 12/3/24 – Drafting default judgment, 5.00 hours; and

- 12/4/24 – Reviewed and finalized Default Judgement documents, 1.00 hour.

Plaintiff indicates that he is a high-frequency filer of ADA/Unruh Civil Rights Act cases. (Compl., ¶ 28; Code Civ. Proc., § 425.50, subd. (a)(4)(ii).) Given the high volume of such cases and the extensive repetition of work product therein, the Court finds the above-referenced entries excessive. The Court will therefore reduce them to 2.00 hours for drafting the default judgment and 0.5 hours for reviewing and finalizing the default judgment documents, which results in a reduction of $1,575.00. Plaintiff’s revised total of attorney fees is $850.00.

With respect to costs, Plaintiff improperly included items of postage. (Price Decl., Ex. 2, p. 14 of pdf; Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (b)(3).) The Court therefore deducts $3.50 in postage costs. Plaintiff also included $200.00 in “Investigator fees.” (Price Decl., Ex. 2, p. 14 of pdf.) Presumably, this refers to the inspection of the subject property for purposes of ADA compliance, but investigation expenses are generally excluded as recoverable costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subds. (b)(2), (b)(4).) The Court therefore deducts $200.00 in costs as well. Plaintiff’s revised total of costs is $574.58.

The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s default judgment request in the reduced amount of $5,424.58.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $5,424.58. If Plaintiff submits on the Tentative Ruling, the Court directs Plaintiff to submit a revised proposed judgment consistent with the Court’s ruling herein for the Court’s review and signature. If the new proposed default judgment is signed, no appearance is necessary.