Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV17172, Date: 2023-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17172    Hearing Date: January 26, 2024    Dept: 34

PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

I.          BACKGROUND

On July 21, 2023, Plaintiff Drew Hunthausen filed his Complaint against Defendant Marina Pacific Hotel and Suites, LLC on a cause of action for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

On November 1, 2023, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office entered default on Defendant.

On December 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed:

(1)       Judicial Council Form CIV-100, Request for Court Judgment;

(2)       Judicial Council Form CIV-110, Request for Dismissal;

(3)       Judicial Council Form JUD-100, Proposed Judgment;

(4)       Declaration of Drew Hunthausen; and

(5)       Declaration of Victoria C. Knowles.

On December 5, 2023, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office dismissed the Doe defendants.

        On December 20, 2023, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s Request for Default Judgment.

        On December 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed:

(1)       Judicial Council Form JUD-100, Proposed Judgment; and

(2)       Declaration of Drew Hunthausen.

II.       ANALYSIS

Plaintiff states that he “first attempted to access Defendant[‘s website] . . . when trying to book a room for a trip.  “I thereafter attempted to access the website about three more times.” (Hunthausen Declaration, ¶ 2.) On that basis, Plaintiff is requesting “$16,000 in total statutory damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a) for the more than three times he attempted and was denied access to Defendant’s website . . . .” (Knowles Declaration, ¶ 7.) 

The Court questions whether Plaintiff actually was “trying to book a room for a trip.” Rather, the Court believes that Plaintiff Drew Hunthausen is a tester – i.e., an “individual[] with disabilities who visit[s] places of public accommodation to determine their compliance with Title III [of the ADA].”  (See Complaint, ¶8.)  According to the LASC’s website, Plaintiff Hunthausen has filed over 75 ADA complaints within the past year in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

The Court recognizes that “testers” are permitted to file suit under the ADA, and thus need not resolve the issue of whether Plalintiff was actually trying to book a room at Defendant’s hotel.

However, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s statement that he tried to book the room four times is not credible.  If the Court were to impose penalties for each of the four alleged attempts navigate Defendant’s website, then why shouldn’t Plaintiff make 10 or 100 attempts the next time he files one of his “test” lawsuits?  Since Civil Code §52(a) requires imposition of $4,000 for each violation, this would raise the penalties to $40,000 or $400,000.  This would be an absurd result.

Instead, the Court will impose a penalty  under Civil Code Section 52(a) for one violation of the statute.

III.     CONCLUSION

        The Request for Default Judgment is GRANTED in part. Default Judgment is AWARDED in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the total amount of $4.884.00, which consists of $4,000.00 in damages, $330.00 in attorney’s fees, and $514.00 in costs as indicated below: