Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV01894, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22PSCV01894 Hearing Date: January 30, 2024 Dept: G
Plaintiff Rebecca
Castillo’s Application for Default Judgment
Respondent: NO OPPOSITION
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff Rebecca Castillo’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
This is a disability rights action. Plaintiff Rebecca Castillo is a visually impaired and legally blind individual. Defendant Bay Poke Franchise, Inc. (Bay Poke) is a California corporation that operates a commercial website available to the public.
As early as August 2022, Castillo visited Bay Poke’s website multiple times and alleges the following barriers to access existed: (1) graphics, links, and buttons on the website were mislabeled or lacked alternative text (alt-text) for screen-reading software to read out; (2) multiple pages contained insufficient navigational headings; (3) menu links and descriptions were inaccessible to screen reading technology, and (4) the checkout system was inaccessible.
On November 18, 2022, Castillo filed a complaint for damages and injunctive relief against Bay Poke and Does 1-10, alleging violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA). On December 15, Castillo’s process server personally served Bay Poke’s agent for the service of process in Buena Park.
On January 23, 2023, default was entered against Bay Poke. On June 23, Castillo submitted an application for default judgment. On June 29, the court denied Castillo’s application.
On August 4, 2023, Castillo filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same defendants alleging the same causes of action. On August 9, Castillo’s process served Bay Poke with substitute service in Buena Park.
On October 30, 2023, default was entered against Bay Poke. On January 26, 2024, Castillo submitted the present application for default judgment.
An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for January 30, 2024.
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
Castillo seeks default judgment against Bay Poke in the total amount of $9,074, including $8,000 in damages, $570 in attorney fees, and $504 in costs. Because the court finds Castillo has submitted sufficient evidence, the court GRANTS Castillo’s application for default judgment but in the reduced amount of $6,074.00. The court exercises its discretion based on Plaintiff’s declaration to award deterrence damages of $1,000, instead of the $4,000.00 requested.
The court also notes that Plaintiff’s previous default judgment application was denied on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to adequately allege how the website barriers deterred or affected Castillo’s full and equal access to Bay Poke’s physical store. The court finds that Plaintiff’s FAC included additional allegations stating the website barriers prevented Plaintiff from learning information about Defendant’s menu and products online before visiting their physical store and thus affected Plaintiff’s full and equal access. (FAC, ¶ 39.) These barriers also apparently deterred Castillo from visiting a second time on July 19, 2023. (FAC, ¶ 40-42.) The court finds these additional allegations sufficient to support Plaintiff’s claims.
CONCLUSION