Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV01323, Date: 2024-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01323    Hearing Date: February 2, 2024    Dept: K

Plaintiff Raul Uriarte-Limon’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background   

Plaintiff Raul Uriarte-Limon (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

Plaintiff has a spinal injury and uses a wheelchair for mobility. On February 9, 2023, Plaintiff went to the California Mini Mart located at 3109 Colima Road, Hacienda Heights, California, 91745 but encountered parking barriers; namely, the spaces designated as accessible suffer from excessive slopes, non-compliant or non-existent access aisles, lack of complete or correct signage, and a failure to meet the size/scoping requirements. Additionally, the code enforcement signage at either entrance to the parking is incomplete. The property is owned by Dorthy Ann Gray (“Gray”); Bahadar Ram Lakha (“Lakha”) owns or operates the store.

On May 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against Gray, Lakha and Does 1-10 for:

1.                  Violation of The Americans with Disabilities Act

2.                  Violation of The Unruh Civil Rights Act

3.                  Violation of The California Disabled Persons Act

On July 18, 2023, Lakha’s default was entered. On September 12, 2023, Gray’s default was entered.

On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed Gray, without prejudice.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment is set for February 2, 2024.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is denied without prejudice. The following defects are noted:

1.                  Plaintiff seeks $26.14 for “[p]ostage.” Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5, subdivision (b)(3) does not allow for postage. The court declines Plaintiff’s request for costs of $174.15 for “[i]nvestigation & [r]ecords” made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205.

2.                  Plaintiff is requested to resubmit its attorney’s fees request in compliance with Local Rule 3.214.

3.                  Attorney Sara Johnson represents that Plaintiff expended $1,865.85 for a “deed image download.” It is unclear to the court what this means. Plaintiff is requested to provide an explanation and a receipt for same.

4.                  Plaintiff’s proposed judgment seeks, inter alia, that Lakha be required to “install and maintain as accessible paths of travel into and throughout the subject property, including but not limited to the entrance and the inside aisles.” The “subject property” is not identified. Further, Plaintiff’s complaint is limited to parking barriers. There are no allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint that Plaintiff was somehow prohibited full and equal access once inside the California Mini Mart on the date of the incident. Plaintiff should also amend this paragraph to identify specific provisions of the California Building Code and 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

5.                  Plaintiff’s proposed judgment also seeks that Lakha obtain biennial Certified

Access Specialist (“CASp”) architectural inspections of the subject facility. . .” Again, this request is not limited to parking barriers, which is the subject of Plaintiff’s complaint.

6.                  Plaintiff’s proposed judgment seeks that Lakha be required to install a

“complaint [sic] accessible parking space, install all necessary signage that will enable enforcement of applicable laws against individuals improperly parking in the designated parking space or access aisle at the Store.” The term “Store” is not defined. Again, Plaintiff should amend this paragraph to identify specific provisions of the California Building Code and 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.