DEPARTMENT O LAW AND MOTION RULINGS 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. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument. The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore. Case Number: 24PSCV00618 Hearing Date: March 25, 2025 Dept: O Tentative Ruling Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice; see infra for the 3 defects. Background This is a disability rights action. Plaintiff Frank Lara alleges that he encountered architectural barriers in violation of the ADA when he visited Defendant Splatter House Screen Printing. On March 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed suit for damages and injunctive relief for violations of: Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act. On January 8, 2025, default was entered against Defendant; that same day, Plaintiff filed the application material. Discussion Plaintiff seeks Plaintiff $8,000.00 in statutory damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a), attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,225.00, and costs in the amount of $1,470, for a total amount of $10,695.00. The court denies the application for the following reasons. First, Plaintiff has not submitted a declaration is to support a request for deterrence damages insofar. And to the extent that Plaintiff relies upon federal authority by citing to Johnson v. Guedoir, 218 F. Supp. 3d 1096; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150740 (USDC Cal, E.D. 2016), the Unruh Civil Rights Act is a matter of state law. (Alan v. Superior Court (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 217, 229 [“the decisions of federal district and circuit courts, although entitled to great weight, are not binding on state courts even as to issues of federal law.”] Therefore, the judgment would be reduced by $4,000 absent a sufficient declaration. Second, an application for entry of default judgment must comport with the rules of CCP section 585, which requires the submission of admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested. Here, Plaintiff’s complaint states the “There was no parking space designated or designed for disabled persons” and “no striping of the handicapped access parking spot, access aisle and missing the ‘NO PARKING’ warnings and signs” (Complaint p. 3), but Plaintiff fails to submit evidence i.e., photos of said alleged violations. Therefore, the judgment would be denied for the failure to provide evidence. Third, Counsel has not provided a detailed breakdown of attorney fees, and it is unclear whether Plaintiff’s Counsel seeks attorney fees pursuant to the Local Rules. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the application DENIED without prejudice for the three stated defects.

DEPARTMENT O LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

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. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 24PSCV00618 Hearing Date: March 25, 2025 Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice; see infra for the 3 defects.

Background

This is a disability rights action. Plaintiff Frank Lara alleges that he encountered architectural barriers in violation of the ADA when he visited Defendant Splatter House Screen Printing.

On March 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed suit for damages and injunctive relief for violations of: Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act.

On January 8, 2025, default was entered against Defendant; that same day, Plaintiff filed the application material.

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks Plaintiff $8,000.00 in statutory damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a), attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,225.00, and costs in the amount of $1,470, for a total amount of $10,695.00.

The court denies the application for the following reasons.

First, Plaintiff has not submitted a declaration is to support a request for deterrence damages insofar. And to the extent that Plaintiff relies upon federal authority by citing to Johnson v. Guedoir, 218 F. Supp. 3d 1096; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150740 (USDC Cal, E.D. 2016), the Unruh Civil Rights Act is a matter of state law. (Alan v. Superior Court (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 217, 229 [“the decisions of federal district and circuit courts, although entitled to great weight, are not binding on state courts even as to issues of federal law.”] Therefore, the judgment would be reduced by $4,000 absent a sufficient declaration.

Second, an application for entry of default judgment must comport with the rules of CCP section 585, which requires the submission of admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested. Here, Plaintiff’s complaint states the “There was no parking space designated or designed for disabled persons” and “no striping of the handicapped access parking spot, access aisle and missing the ‘NO PARKING’ warnings and signs” (Complaint p. 3), but Plaintiff fails to submit evidence i.e., photos of said alleged violations. Therefore, the judgment would be denied for the failure to provide evidence.

Third, Counsel has not provided a detailed breakdown of attorney fees, and it is unclear whether Plaintiff’s Counsel seeks attorney fees pursuant to the Local Rules.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the application DENIED without prejudice for the three stated defects.