Cartwright v. Patel ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS CARTWRIGHT, Case No.: 18cv2191-L-BGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 v. DEFAULT JUDGMENT 14 ANJALI PATEL et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. no. 18 22) in the sum of $12,600 for statutory damages and attorneys’ fees. No opposition 19 was filed. For the reasons which follow, the motion is granted. 20 Plaintiff is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair. He booked a room at the 21 Oceanside Inn & Suites located at 1820 S. Coast Hwy. in Oceanside, California 22 (“Motel”). He discovered that his room and other amenities at the Motel were not 23 accessible. Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”) 24 and Cal. Civ. Code § 51et seq. (“Unruh Act”) seeking damages and attorneys’ fees. 25 The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. 26 Plaintiff served the complaint on individual Defendants Dipak T. Patel, Anjali 27 D. Patel, Dhiren K. Sutaria, and Mamta D. Sutaria, who own the Motel, as well as 28 Nurpur Property Management, Inc., which operates it. None of the Defendants 1 responded to the complaint or otherwise made an appearance. Upon Plaintiff’s 2 application, default was entered by the Clerk. (Doc. no. 13.) 3 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b), a court may order default 4 judgment following entry of default by clerk. Entry of default does not automatically 5 entitle a plaintiff to a court-ordered judgment. See Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 6 924-25 (9th Cir. 1986). In deciding whether to grant a motion for a default judgment, the 7 Court must consider the following factors (“Eitel factors”): 8 (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money 9 at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material 10 facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring 11 decisions on the merits. 12 13 NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Eitel v. 14 McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986)). 15 Upon entry of default, all well-pleaded facts in the complaint are taken as true. 16 See TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987). The 17 complaint sufficiently alleges Defendants’ liability under the ADA and the Unruh Act 18 based on unlawful architectural barriers at the Motel. (See doc. no. 1 (“Compl.”) and 19 discussion in doc. no. 22-1 at 7-9.) Plaintiff therefore states a claim for liability 20 against Dipak T. Patel, Anjali D. Patel, Dhiren K. Sutaria, and Mamta D. Sutaria as 21 owners, and Nurpur Property Management, Inc. as the Motel’s operator under the 22 ADA and the Unruh Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a) & (b); Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f) 23 (incorporating ADA violations); see also 28 C.F.R. § 36.201(b) (“Both the landlord 24 who owns the building that houses a place of public accommodation and the tenant 25 who owns or operates the place of public accommodation are public accommodations 26 subject to the requirements of this part.”). 27 Plaintiff’s motion adequately addresses the Eitel factors to warrant entry of 28 default judgment. (See doc. no. 22-1 at 9-12.) No Defendant is an infant, 1 incompetent person, in military service or otherwise exempt by the Soldiers’ and 2 Sailors’ Relief Act. (Doc. no. 22-2 (“Price Dec.”) at 3.) 3 Plaintiff requests damages and attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Unruh Act. Cal. 4 Civ. Code § 52(a). The Unruh Act provides for minimum statutory damages of 5 $4,000 against each person liable. Id. Accordingly, based on the allegations in the 6 complaint and the declarations and exhibits filed with the pending motion (docs. no. 7 22-2 through 22-6), Plaintiff can recover $4,000 in damages jointly and severally 8 against the owners Dipak T. Patel, Anjali D. Patel, Dhiren K. Sutaria, and Mamta D. 9 Sutaria, and $4,000 individually against the operator Nurpur Property Management, 10 Inc. See Lentini v. Cal. Ctr for the Arts, Escondido, 370 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2004.) 11 Plaintiff also seeks attorneys’ fees pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a). His 12 request for $3,775.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs is adequately supported by 13 counsel’s declaration and exhibits thereto. (See Price Dec.) The Court finds 9.5 14 hours was reasonably expended to investigate Plaintiff’s claims, prepare the 15 complaint, request entry of default and move for default judgment. The Court also 16 finds the average hourly rate of approximately $397 to be reasonable. Finally, the 17 Court finds reasonable Plaintiff’s itemized request for $825 in costs and investigator 18 fees. 19 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is granted. 20 Plaintiff is awarded $4,000 in damages against Defendants Dipak T. Patel, Anjali D. 21 Patel, Dhiren K. Sutaria, and Mamta D. Sutaria jointly and severally, and $4,000 in 22 / / / / / 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ||damages against Defendant Nurpur Property Management, Inc. individually. Finally, 2 || Plaintiff is awarded $4,600 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The Clerk of Court is shall 3 ||enter judgment according to this order. 4 IT ISSO ORDERED. 5 6 || Dated: October 25, 2020 : 1 fee fp 8 H . James Lorenz, 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28