Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 22PSCV00264 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV00264, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00264 Hearing Date: December 8, 2022 Dept: A

Plaintiff Antonio Fernandez’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Antonio Fernandez’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED and Attorney Fees Are Awarded in the Reduced Amount of $2,460.

BACKGROUND

This is a disability rights action. Plaintiff Antonio Fernandez is paralyzed from the waist down and utilizes a wheelchair for mobility. Jaramillo Investments, Inc. (Jaramillo Investments) owns and operates a grocery store in La Puente on property owned by The Parrish Family Trust dated August 23, 2001 (Parrish Family Trust). Marylou Parrish (Parrish) is a trustee of the Parrish Family Trust.

On January 28, 2021, Plaintiff visited the grocery store to access its goods and assess business for compliance with disability access laws. During the visit, Plaintiff alleges the following barriers to access existed: (1) service and sales counters were not wheelchair accessible under ADA standards; (2) floor space in front of meat counters were obstructed by merchandise racks, and (3) paths of travel for customers were too narrow for wheelchair access.

On March 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint against Jaramillo Investments, Parrish (in an individual and representative capacity as trustee of Parrish Family Trust), and Does 1-10, alleging a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA).

On June 6, 2022, default was entered against Parrish and on July 11, default was entered against Jaramillo Investments. On October 13, Plaintiff submitted the present application for default judgment.

An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for December 8, 2022.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has filed to timely respond or appear. 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) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (7) exhibits as necessary; and (8) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1800.)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $7,915.77, including $4,000 in damages, $3,040 in attorney fees, and $875.77 in costs. Because the court finds Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application for default judgment. However, the court reduces Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees to $2,460.

Plaintiff opposes the use of Local Rule 3.214 in awarding attorney fees, arguing its application is inappropriate in this case. Local Rule 3.214 sets a schedule for granting attorney fees in default cases and applies “unless otherwise determined by the court.” Ultimately, “[t]he amount to be awarded to a party as attorney fees is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge.” (Contractors Labor Pool, Inc. v. Westway Contractors, Inc. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 152, 168.) In determining the reasonableness of an attorney fees award, the court considers “the nature, difficulty, intricacy and importance of the litigation, the amount involved, the skill required and success of the attorney's efforts, his or her learning, age and experience, and the time consumed.” (Id., at p. 169.)

Here, pursuant to Local Rule 3.214, the amount of attorneys’ fees is calculated at $330. However, considering the factors above, the court finds this amount an unreasonable and insufficient award in this case. In doing so, the court notes the provision of attorney fees in Civil Code section 52 reflects “the Legislature’s intent to encourage vigorous enforcement of the [UCRA] by removing the potent economic obstacles presented by the cost of obtaining representation.” (Turner v. Association of American Medical Colleges (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1063.)

In this case, Plaintiff’s counsel spent 12.3 hours on this case, including time spent meeting with the client, inspecting the store location, researching public records to determine parties, drafting the complaint, drafting requests for entries of default, and drafting the present application. (Daily Decl., ¶ 7.) The court estimates the average hourly rate was $247.15. Because this case was uncontested, the court will reduce the hourly rate to $200 an hour and award attorney fees in the reduced amount of $2,460.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is GRANTED. The courts awards reasonable attorney fees in the reduced amount of $2,460.