Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 21STCV28887, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 21STCV28887    Hearing Date: August 24, 2023    Dept: 55

HILL v. VAULT LOUNGE, LLC                                                  21STCV28887

Hearing Date:  8/24/23,  Dept. 55

#6:   MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS.

 

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

 

MP:  Plaintiff

RP:  

 

 

Summary

 

On 8/5/21, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Violation Of The Unruh Civil Rights Act, alleging that defendants failed to comply with California disability access standards applying at the time of each new construction and/or alteration, or failed to maintain accessible features in operable working condition, and, when Plaintiff visited the property, he experienced multiple access barriers, including those related to parking, paths of travel, signage, and entryway.

Defense counsel withdrew, by order filed 1/23/23.

On 4/20/23, an unopposed summary Judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff JONELLE HILL, and against Defendant VAULT LOUNGE, LLC, in the amount of $16,000 in statutory damages.

 

 

MP Positions

 

Plaintiff moves for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of $17,902.00, and litigation costs/expenses in the amount of $805.07, for a total award of $18,707.07, on grounds including the following:

 

·         The motion is made pursuant to California Civil Code § 52(a), California Code of Civil Procedure §1033.5(10)(B), and California Rules of Court 3.1702.

·         Plaintiff has a judgment in her favor against Defendant Vault Lounge, LLC, showing that Defendant made discrimination contrary to California Civil Code §51.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

The unopposed motion is granted, as prayed.

The Court awards to Plaintiff JONELLE HILL attorneys' fees, costs and expenses in the total sum of $18,707.07 against Defendant VAULT LOUNGE, LLC.

The failure to file a proper and timely opposition in trial court creates a waiver of the issues on any appeal.  Bell v. Am. Title Ins. Co. (1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 1589, 1602;  Cabrini Villas Homeowners Assn. v. Haghverdian (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4th 683, 693.  A judge in a civil case is not "'obligated to seek out theories [a party] might have advanced, or to articulate … that which … [a party] has left unspoken.'"  Mesecher v. County of San Diego (1992) 9 Cal. App. 4th 1677, 1686.