Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV01236, Date: 2025-02-06 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: 24PSCV01236    Hearing Date: February 6, 2025    Dept: G

Plaintiff Bryan Estrada’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Bryan Estrada’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $5,939.00.

BACKGROUND

This is a disability rights action. Plaintiff Bryan Estrada is paraplegic and requires a wheelchair to ambulate. Defendant Metoche Land, LLC (Metoche Land) allegedly owns a property in Pomona upon which Defendants Alpha Cell, Inc. (Alpha Cell) and Hani Aziz operate a T-Mobile store. In March 2024, Estrada visited the T-Mobile store for the purpose of utilizing its services and conducting disability access testing. Estrada alleges the following barriers to access existed, including a noncompliant landing at the entrance, a noncompliant door stop, noncompliant transaction counters, and a lack of non-accessible entrance signage.

On April 17, 2024, Estrada filed a complaint for damages and injunctive relief against Metoche Land, Alpha Cell, and Aziz (collectively, Defendants) as well as Does 1-10, alleging violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA). On May 6, 2024, Estrada’s process server personally served Alpha Cell and Aziz in Corona. On May 11, 2024, Estrada’s process server personally served Metoche Land in Diamond Bar.

On June 24, 2024, the court entered default against Metoche Land after they failed to timely file an answer.

On September 5, 2024, Estrada filed a notice of settlement. Subsequently during an OSC Re: Dismissal on November 4, 2024, Estrada’s counsel represented that Defendants failed to sign the parties’ settlement agreement.

On December 2, 2024, the court entered default against Alpha Cell and Aziz after they failed to timely file an answer.

On January 31, 2025, Estrada submitted the present application for default judgment.

An OSC Re: Default/Default Judgment and CMC are set for February 6, 2025.

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

Estrada seeks default judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $10,179.00, including $8,000.00 in damages, $570.00 in attorney fees, and $1,609.00 in costs. Because the court finds Estrada has submitted sufficient evidence, the court GRANTS Estrada’s application for default judgment in the reduced amount of $5,939.00 for the following reasons.

In addition to $4,000 in statutory damages for the alleged violations, Estrada 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, Estrada alleges Estrada encountered accessibility barriers at Defendants’ T-Mobile store on March 2, 2024. (Complaint, ¶ 14-16, 24.) While Estrada also alleges Estrada “is being deterred from patronizing the Business,” the court finds Estrada failed to allege sufficient facts to establish how Estrada was deterred on a specific occasion. (Complaint, ¶ 27.) Because Estrada may not rely on conclusory claims to obtain deterrence damages, Estrada’s request for deterrence damages is DENIED, and Estrada’s damages are limited to $4,000.00.

In light of this reduction and pursuant to Local Rule 3.214, Estrada’s award of attorney fees are also reduced to $330 ($150 + $180 or 6% of $3,000).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Estrada’s application for default judgment is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $5,939.00.