Johnson v. Oakwood Center LLC

Background

Scott Johnson brought claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act based on alleged accessibility violations at Ceci’s Liquor Store in San Jose, California. He alleged that the store’s accessible parking space had slopes and damaged pavement, interior paths were too narrow for a wheelchair, and the transaction counter was too high and lacked a lowered section. He sought an injunction, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Oakwood Center LLC and Long Thanh Do did not answer or otherwise appear. The clerk entered Do’s default on May 15, 2019, and Oakwood Center’s default on May 30, 2019. Johnson then filed an amended motion for default judgment.

Reassignment and service of process

Johnson consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, but the defendants’ lack of appearance meant that all parties had not consented. The court therefore ordered the case reassigned to a district judge and issued a report and recommendation.

The court found that Do was properly served personally at the store. It found, however, that service on Oakwood Center was inadequate. The proof of service showed that papers were left with Eva Wong rather than Oakwood Center’s registered agent, Sin Yee Wong, and did not show the reasonably diligent prior attempts at personal service required for substituted service. The court therefore recommended denying the motion for default judgment as to Oakwood Center.

Default judgment as to Long Thanh Do

For Do, the court applied the factors used to decide whether to enter default judgment. Because Do’s default meant that the well-pleaded liability allegations were treated as true, the court found that Johnson sufficiently alleged an ADA claim and a related Unruh Act claim.

The court found that Johnson had standing to seek relief because he alleged that he personally encountered the barriers and was deterred from returning to the store. It also found that the alleged parking, path-of-travel, and transaction-counter conditions were architectural barriers under the ADA and that Johnson had sufficiently alleged that removing them was readily achievable. The court further stated that an ADA violation necessarily constituted a violation of the Unruh Act for the barriers alleged here.

Recommended relief

The court recommended granting Johnson’s motion for default judgment as to Long Thanh Do. It recommended an injunction requiring Do, to the extent he had the legal right and ability to do so as the alleged store owner, to provide accessible parking spaces, paths of travel, and a transaction counter meeting the cited ADA standards.

The court recommended $8,000 in statutory damages under the Unruh Act. It also recommended $670 in costs. For attorneys’ fees, the court reduced the requested rates and recommended $4,597.50 based on 11.1 hours of work: $475 per hour for Mark Potter and Russell Handy, and $350 per hour for Dennis Price and Amanda Seabock. The total recommended award for fees and costs was $5,267.50.

Conclusion

The court ordered reassignment to a district judge and recommended that the amended motion for default judgment be granted in part and denied in part: denied as to Oakwood Center, granted as to Long Thanh Do, with the damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and injunction described above. The report also stated that any party could file objections within 14 days after service.