Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 23PSCV03844, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03844, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 23PSCV03844 Hearing Date: July 31, 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 Yilay LLC (Yilay) is a California limited liability company that operates a commercial website available to the public.

As early as November 2023, Castillo visited Yilay’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) the website contained an inaccessible video; and (4) the checkout system for pickup orders was inaccessible.

On December 11, 2023, Castillo filed a complaint for damages and injunctive relief against Yilay and Does 1-10, alleging violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA). On December 15, 2023, Castillo’s process server served Yilay with substitute service in Irvine.

On February 8, 2024, the Court entered default against Yilay after they failed to file a timely answer. On July 26, 2024, Castillo submitted the present application for default judgment.

An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for July 31, 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 Yilay in the total amount of $9,074, including $8,000 in damages, $570 in attorney fees, and $504 in costs.

In addition to $4,000 in statutory damages for the alleged violations, Castillo also seeks $4,000 in deterrence damages. Generally, a plaintiff may obtain statutory damages for UCRA violations “if the plaintiff personally encountered the violation on a particular occasion, or the plaintiff was deterred from accessing a place of public accommodation on a particular occasion.” (Civ. Code, § 55.56, subd. (b).) To establish that a plaintiff was deterred, plaintiff must establish that plaintiff had actual knowledge of the violations and that the violations would have denied plaintiff “full and equal access” on that occasion. (Civ. Code, § 55.56, subd. (d).)

Courts have awarded deterrence damages in addition to statutory damages for UCRA violations when plaintiffs seek damages for one encounter with violations and one instance of deterrence. (See, e.g., Johnson v. Guedoir (E.D. Cal. 2016) 218 F.Supp.3d 1096, 1103.) But courts have declined to award additional deterrence damages when plaintiffs fail to establish they were deterred on a specific occasion and instead rely on a conclusory claim that they were deterred from patronizing a business. (Filardi v. Starbucks # 8709 (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2018, No. 5:18–CV–00404–ODW–SP) 2018 WL 3303316, *4; Ho v. BSG Sunflower Investments, LLC (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2017, No. 8:17-cv-00863-JLS-JCG) 2017 WL 11633694, *7.)

Here, Castillo alleges Castillo faced barriers when Castillo visited Defendant’s website on November 13, 2023. Further, Castillo makes the general and conclusory allegation that Castillo has been deterred from Defendant’s physical storefront because she could not order food online, but failed to allege a specific instance of deterrence. (FAC, ¶ 42.) Thus, the Court declines to award $4,000 in deterrence damages, but instead reduces the requested amount to $2,000.

Because the court finds Castillo has submitted sufficient evidence, the court GRANTS Castillo’s application for default judgment.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Castillo’s application for default judgment in the total amount of $7,074.00 is GRANTED (Damages of $4,000 + Deterrence Damages of $2,000 + Attorney’s Fees of $570 + Costs of $504).