Johnson v. Johnson

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that the configuration of a disability-accessible parking space and the transaction counter at the Tana Market violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The complaint identified Sean Patrick Johnson as the owner of the real property, individually and as a trustee, and identified Melaku Dires Aynalem and Chalachew Kassaya Ejigu as the owners of the Tana Market located there.

The defendants did not file answers or other responses. The clerk entered defaults against Aynalem and Ejigu on October 20, 2017, and against Sean Johnson on December 6, 2017. Scott Johnson then moved for default judgment, and none of the defendants opposed the motion.

Service and jurisdiction

The court found that Sean Johnson was personally served. It also found that substitute service on Aynalem and Ejigu was adequate because the documents were left with an employee or person in charge at the business address, mailed to that address, and preceded by three unsuccessful attempts at personal service.

The court determined that it had federal-question jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. It also found personal jurisdiction over each defendant.

Default judgment

Applying the factors used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to evaluate default judgment, the court concluded that most factors favored entering judgment. The defendants had notice, there was no indication that their failure to appear resulted from excusable neglect, and the complaint adequately alleged the claims. The court also found that refusing judgment would leave Scott Johnson without another stated remedy against the defendants.

The opinion’s opening states that the motion for default judgment should be “GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.” In the conclusion, the court recommends that the motion be granted as to Sean Johnson, Aynalem, and Ejigu, but the recommendation awards less attorney’s fees than requested.

Relief recommended

The court recommended an injunction requiring the defendants to provide an accessible parking space and transaction counter at the Tana Market property.

The court recommended $8,000 in statutory damages under the Unruh Act: $4,000 against Sean Johnson and $4,000 against Aynalem and Ejigu jointly and separately. It explained that private ADA suits do not provide monetary damages, while the Unruh Act provides at least $4,000 for each occasion on which a person is denied equal access to a covered establishment.

For attorney’s fees, the court approved hourly rates of $475 for Mark Potter and Russell Handy and $450 for Phyl Grace. It found that the attorneys reasonably spent 8.4 hours on the case and calculated a lodestar—the usual calculation of reasonable hours multiplied by reasonable rates—of $3,937.50. The court found no reason to adjust that amount. It also awarded $555 in costs for the filing fee, an investigator, and service.

Procedural status

Because the defendants had not consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction, the court ordered the clerk to reassign the case to a district judge. The recommendation directed Scott Johnson to serve each defendant and file proof of service. Any party could object within 14 days. Judge Susan Van Keulen’s document was a report and recommendation, not a statement that the district judge had entered the final judgment.

Disposition

The court ordered reassignment and recommended that the motion for default judgment be granted in part and denied in part, with the specific monetary and injunctive relief described above.