Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 21PSCV00510, Date: 2022-11-10 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. R at 909-802-1117 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 21PSCV00510    Hearing Date: November 10, 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 an application for default judgment, which the court denied without prejudice on July 27, 2022.

 

On October 19, 2022, Plaintiff refiled her application.

 

Discussion


Previously, the court 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 now submits the declaration of Rosemary Musachio, an accessibility and assistive technology consultant and expert. Her declaration provides “Defendant has (1) continued to construct and maintain its website in a manner inaccessible to visually-impaired individuals; (2) failed to construct and maintain its Website that is sufficiently intuitive so as to be equally accessible to visually-impaired individuals; and (3) failed to take actions to correct these persistent access barriers.” However, such a statement does not explain how such defects amount to violations of the ADA. Therefore, as the declaration is at most conclusory, the evidence fails.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the foregoing, the court denies Plaintiff’s application, without prejudice.


            [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.)