Johnson v. Shahkarami

Background

Scott Johnson brought claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought an injunction, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Johnson alleged that he is a C-5 quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair and that he encountered barriers during several visits to a store allegedly owned by Andranik Shahkarami. The alleged barriers involved accessible parking, the entrance-door hardware, and the height of the sales counter.

Shahkarami did not answer the complaint or otherwise appear. At Johnson’s request, the clerk entered default against Shahkarami on January 27, 2021. Shahkarami was notified of Johnson’s motion for default judgment but did not oppose or respond to it.

Jurisdiction, service, and default judgment

The court found that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the ADA claim because it arose under federal law and supplemental jurisdiction over the related Unruh Act claim. It also found that Shahkarami had been properly served through substituted service at his home and therefore that the court had personal jurisdiction over him.

Applying the factors used to decide whether default judgment is appropriate, the court found that Johnson would be prejudiced without a judgment, his allegations stated meritorious ADA and Unruh Act claims, and there was no indication that Shahkarami’s failure to respond resulted from excusable neglect. The court accepted the complaint’s liability-related allegations as true because of the default.

ADA and Unruh Act claims

For the ADA claim, the court found that Johnson adequately alleged that he was disabled, that Shahkarami owned a place of public accommodation, and that Johnson was denied full and equal access because of disability. The court applied the 1991 accessibility standards to the existing store because the record indicated that the store was constructed in 1971 and did not show later construction or alterations. The court stated that the 2010 standards would govern remedial work undertaken after March 15, 2012.

The court found that Johnson had adequately alleged violations involving the parking area’s lack of an access aisle, the entrance door’s handle, and the sales counter’s height. The court also applied the burden-shifting approach for the requirement that barrier removal be “readily achievable,” meaning easily accomplished without much difficulty or expense. It found that Johnson had plausibly shown that removal of the barriers was readily achievable and that Shahkarami, who did not defend the case, had not met his burden to show otherwise.

The court stated that an ADA violation necessarily constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act. It therefore found that Johnson had also adequately alleged an Unruh Act claim based on the parking, entrance-door, and sales-counter barriers.

Relief

The court granted default judgment. It awarded Johnson $4,000 in statutory damages under the Unruh Act based on the alleged violations during four visits. It also awarded $2,433 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The amount consisted of a $1,903 lodestar for attorneys’ fees, calculated using adjusted hourly rates and 5.92 hours of work, plus $530 in costs for filing, service, and investigation expenses.

The court granted injunctive relief requiring the parking lot to comply with the 2010 ADA accessibility standards no later than six months after service of the injunction. Johnson was directed to submit a revised proposed judgment and injunction within seven days.

Ruling

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that Johnson’s motion for default judgment was GRANTED, awarded $4,000 in statutory damages and $2,433 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and granted the parking-lot injunction. The opinion’s discussion describes injunctive relief concerning the parking lot, entrance door, and sales counter, but the numbered order expressly requires compliance only for the parking lot.