Acosta v. Martinez. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOSE ACOSTA, No. 1:19-cv-00307-AWI-EPG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART 12 v. (ECF Nos. 16, 26, 27) 13 MARIA MARTINEZ, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Jose Acosta’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Default 17 Judgment. (ECF No. 16). On March 3, 2020, Magistrate Judge Erica Grosjean issued Findings 18 and Recommendations recommending that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default be granted in part 19 and denied in part. (ECF No. 26). The Findings and Recommendations were served on the 20 parties with instructions that any objections must be filed within fourteen days of service of the 21 order. On March 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed an objection in part. (ECF No. 27). 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 23 de novo review of the case. 24 Plaintiff’s objections concerned the fee award. The Findings and Recommendations 25 recommended denying Plaintiff’s requested $797.43 for certain costs because the cited source did 26 not contain any itemized breakdown of those costs. (ECF No. 26, at 28). In his objections, 27 Plaintiff noted he had inadvertently cited the wrong affidavit which contained supporting 28 documentation for the $797.43 award. The documentation adequately shows Plaintiff’s $210.50 4:40 VOU EOIN NMC LO POI I er OY eve 1 | costs for service of process, $400 for the filing fee, and $186.93 for investigations, totaling 2 | $797.43. Those types of out-of-pocket expenses “would normally be charged to a fee-paying 3 | client,” Harris v. Marhoefer, 24 F.3d 16, 19 (9th Cir. 1994), and are therefore recoverable. 4 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and 5 || Recommendations are otherwise supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated March 3, 2020 (ECF No. 26) are 8 ADOPTED CONSISTENT WITH THIS ORDER; 9 2. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is granted as to his claims under the ADA 10 and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act; 11 3. Plaintiff is awarded statutory damages in the amount of $4,000.00; 12 4. Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees in the amount of $1,823.00; 13 5. Plaintiff is GRANTED an injunction requiring Defendants to (1) provide a 14 properly configured, located and identified accessible parking stall with an 15 adjacent access aisle, and (2) provide and maintain proper clear width of the route 16 of travel from the designated accessible parking to the entrance of the subject 17 facility; 18 6. Plaintiff is awarded $797.43 for costs; and 19 7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case and mail copies of this order 20 on Defendants Maria Martinez a/k/a Maria Lourdes Martinez Vasquez d/b/a 21 Accesorios Martinez and TBS Properties, Inc. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 | oe ~_-SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28