Macias v. Fasail

Background

Lena Macias brought claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and three California laws based on alleged architectural barriers at A Bite of Wyoming restaurant in San Jose, California. Macias alleged that she has lupus, severe arthritis, spinal stenosis, and diabetes and uses a walker and wheelchair. She alleged that crowded interior pathways prevented wheelchair access, that she could not use the customer restroom, and that the restaurant lacked accessible counter seating and a signature surface. She also identified additional alleged barriers involving parking markings, signs, the front door, an accessible table, the interior pathway, and the bathroom.

The defendants named in the complaint were Gapir Fasail, Pamela Chau, and Somora, Inc. The court later granted a stipulation dismissing Somora, leaving Fasail and Chau as the remaining defendants. After multiple unsuccessful efforts to serve Fasail and Chau personally, the court authorized service by publication. Macias filed proof that the summonses were published once a week for four weeks. The Clerk later entered default against Fasail and Chau, and Macias filed a renewed motion for default judgment.

Jurisdiction and Service

The court found that it had federal-question jurisdiction over the ADA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the related California claims. It also found that Fasail and Chau were subject to the court’s general personal jurisdiction because Macias alleged that they owned the restaurant in California. The court concluded that service by publication complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) and California Code of Civil Procedure section 415.50, and therefore that it had jurisdiction over Fasail and Chau.

Default Judgment

A default judgment is a judgment entered when a defendant fails to respond or defend. The court applied the factors commonly used to decide whether default judgment is appropriate. It found that Macias would be prejudiced without a judgment, that her ADA and Unruh Civil Rights Act claims were adequately pleaded, that the requested monetary relief was proportional to the alleged harm, and that Fasail and Chau had not appeared or challenged the default. Although the policy favoring decisions on the merits weighed slightly against default judgment, the court concluded that the other factors outweighed it.

The court granted Macias’s motion for default judgment on her ADA and Unruh Civil Rights Act claims. It denied the motion on her claims under Health and Safety Code section 19955 and the Disabled Persons Act because Macias did not brief those claims in the motion.

Relief

The court granted $4,000 in statutory damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. It also entered an injunction requiring Fasail and Chau to remedy five listed accessibility violations at the restaurant: faded ADA parking lines; faded ADA access lines; a faded international symbol of accessibility; a tow-away sign with no information; and a faded no-parking sign on the surface of the accessible parking space. The court did not order relief for barriers that Macias’s settlement with Somora had resolved.

The court granted in part and denied in part Macias’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. It awarded a total of $15,416.38, consisting of $2,860 in fees for Irene Karbelashvili, $8,125 in fees for Irakli Karbelashvili, $2,800 for accessibility expert Bassam Atwal, and $1,631.38 in other litigation costs. The court excluded time spent settling or mediating with Somora because Macias did not prevail against that former defendant.