Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 22PSCV00762 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV00762, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00762 Hearing Date: March 22, 2023 Dept: G

Plaintiff Luis Marquez’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Luis Marquez’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED. Reasonable attorney fees are awarded in the reduced amount of $3,540.

BACKGROUND

This is a disability rights action. Plaintiff Luis Marquez is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility. Defendant Grand Gas owns and operates a gas station in Hacienda Heights on property owned by Defendant Hacienda Center, Inc. (Hacienda Center). On April 15, 2021, Plaintiff visited Grand Gas to avail himself of its goods, services, privileges, or advantages. During the visit, Plaintiff alleges the following barriers to access existed: (1) non-compliant fuel pumps, (2) non-compliant entrance ramp, and (3) non-complaint sale counters.

On July 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Hacienda Center and S&I Entertainment, Inc., alleging (1) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA) and (2) violation of the California Disabled Persons Act (DPA).

On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Hacienda Center and Grand Gas alleging the same causes of action. On October 10, Plaintiff’s registered process server served Grand Gas’s agent via substitute service in Orange. On October 11, Plaintiff’s registered process server served Hacienda Center’s agent via substitute service in Los Angeles.

On December 20, 2022, default was entered against Hacienda Center. On January 3, 2023, default was entered against Grand Gas. On March 14, Plaintiff submitted the present application for default judgment.

An OSC Re: Default/Default Judgment is set for March 22, 2023.

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 Defendant in the total amount of $9,930.49, including $4,000 in damages, $4,825 in attorney fees, and $1,105.49 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 $3,540.

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 attorney 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 17.7 hours on this case, including time spent meeting with client, inspecting the store location, researching public records to determine parties, drafting complaint, drafting requests for entries of default, and drafting the present application. (Daily Decl., Ex. 1.) The court estimates the average hourly rate was $272.59. Because this case was uncontested, the court reduces the hourly rate to $200 an hour and award attorney fees in the reduced amount of $3,540.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is GRANTED. The court awards reasonable attorney fees in the reduced amount of $3,540 for a total judgment of $8,645.49.

Plaintiff to submit a judgment consist with the court’s ruling.