Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 21PSCV00510, Date: 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00510    Hearing Date: July 27, 2022    Dept: R

Rebecca Castillo v. Eli & Ella Rose LLC (21PSCV00510)

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Plaintiff Rebecca Castillo’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

 

Tentative Ruling

 

Plaintiff Rebecca Castillo’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT is DENIED

without prejudice.  

 

Background

 

Plaintiff Rebecca Castillo (“Plaintiff”) is a visually impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using a computer. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain and operate its website to be fully accessible and to independently usable by Plaintiff and other visually-impaired people.

 

On June 18, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant and Does 1-10 for:

 

            1. Violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act[1]

 

On August 5, 2021, Defendant’s default was entered.

 

On November 4, 2021, the court denied without prejudice plaintiff’s first application for default judgment.

On March 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant application for default judgment.

 

Discussion


Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total sum of $13,274.00. The break-down is as follows:

 

Demand of Complaint: $12,000.

Costs: $524.00

Attorney Fees: $750.[2]

 

The court previously denied Plaintiff’s application for the failure to “attach any documentary evidence in support of her declaration . . . Plaintiff has not provided the court with any screen shots of the website.”

 

Plaintiff has not provided those screenshots.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the foregoing, the court denies Plaintiff’s application.

            [1]           Plaintiff’s single cause of action is for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, codified at Civil Code sections 51 and 52. Under the Unruh Act, “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal . . . and no matter what their . . . disability [or other protected characteristic] . . . are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” (Civ. Code, § 51; see also CACI No. 3066.) A violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also qualifies as a violation of Unruh. (Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (f).) Moreover, “[w]hoever denies, aids, or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction” contrary to the Unruh Act is liable for damages. (Civ. Code, § 52, subd. (a).) By its terms, the Unruh Act applies only to “business establishments.” (Civ. Code, § 51.) Recent California cases have clarified that this concept is broader than the concept of “places of public accommodation” as used in the ADA. Specifically, in California, a website, that is, a business whose offerings are made entirely by way of an internet connection and one’s own computer or device, may qualify as a business establishment under Unruh. (See White v. Square, Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1019, 1027.)

 

 

[2]           Pursuant to California Civil Code § 52, Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and costs of suit.