Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV03482, Date: 2024-04-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03482    Hearing Date: April 30, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Brian Whitaker (“Plaintiff”) requests for default judgment against Defendant House of Abundance Weho LLC (“Defendant”) in the amount of $9,185.25, which is composed of general damages in the amount of $4,000; costs in the amount of $755.25; and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $4,430.

            a.         Damages 

            Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges two causes of action for (1) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act; and (2) violation of the California Disabled Persons Act, alleging Defendant’s restaurant failed to adequately provide disability accommodations.  Defendant was served with a copy of the summons and complaint via substitute service on September 6, 2023.  Default was entered against Defendant on April 9, 2024, and the Doe defendants were dismissed on April 22, 2024.

            Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks $4,000 in statutory damages for violating the Unruh Act. (See Complaint at Prayer ¶ 4.)  Plaintiff does not seek damages that are in excess of what is pled in the Complaint. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd. (a) [“The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint”]; Levine v. Smith (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1136-1137 [“when recovering damages in a default judgment, the plaintiff is limited to the damages specified in the complaint”].)  Plaintiff has supported his allegations via the Declarations of Brian Whitaker and of Evens Louis.

            Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to the requested $4,000 in damages.

            d.         Attorney Fees and Costs 

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, which outlines recoverable costs to a prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, permits the recovery of attorneys’ fees when authorized by contract, statute, or law.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).)  Code of Civil Procedure section 1021 provides “[e]xcept as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties [….]”  Similarly, Civil Code section 1717 provides “[i]n any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.”  (Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a).)

The Code of Civil Procedure defines the “prevailing party” as follows:

[T]he party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant. If any party recovers other than monetary relief and in situations other than as specified, the “prevailing party” shall be as determined by the court, and under those circumstances, the court, in its discretion, may allow costs or not and, if allowed, may apportion costs between the parties on the same or adverse sides pursuant to rules adopted under Section 1034.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).)

            Civil Code section 52 provides for the recovery of “Attorney’s fees as may be determined by the court.”  (Civ. Code, § 52, subd. (b)(3).)  

            Plaintiff seeks $4,430 in attorneys’ fees as outlined in the billing invoice attached as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Prathima Reddy Price.  Therefore, Plaintiff has substantiated the legal and factual basis for his request for attorneys’ fees.

            Plaintiff also requests $461.17 in costs composed of $461.17 in filing fees, $94.08 in process server fees, and $200 in “investigator’s fees.” (CIV-100.)  However, Code of Civil Procedure, section 1033.5, subdivision (b) specifically disallows the recovery of “Investigation expenses in preparing the case for trial.” 

            Therefore, the Court cannot award the requested $200 in “investigator’s fees.”  Plaintiff’s request for costs is otherwise granted as Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).)

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s request for default judgment is granted in part.  The Court grants default judgment in the amount of $8,985.25, composed of $4,000 in general statutory damages, $4,430 in attorneys’ fees, and $555.25 in costs.  Plaintiff’s request for $200 in “investigator’s fees” is denied as investigation fees are disallowed by statute.