Love v. iCustom Clothing LLC

Background

Samuel Love brought claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA). Love alleged that he is paraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility. He alleged that he visited iCustom, a clothing business located in San Jose, California, on January 9, 2020, and encountered a sales counter that was 41 inches high. The court noted that the ADA standard requires an accessible sales counter to be 36 inches high or lower. An investigator working for Love’s counsel later visited iCustom and confirmed the alleged barrier.

The clerk entered default against iCustom after it was served through Mohannad Ibrahim, whom the record identified as the company’s agent for service of process. iCustom did not appear, challenge the default, or otherwise defend the case.

Jurisdiction and Default Judgment

The court found that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the ADA claim because it arises under federal law. It exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the related UCRA claim because both claims arose from the same underlying event. The court also found that it had general personal jurisdiction over iCustom because iCustom was alleged to be a California limited liability company. The court determined that service of process was proper.

Applying the factors used to decide whether to enter default judgment, the court found that six factors favored judgment: the possibility of prejudice to Love, the merits of the claims, the sufficiency of the complaint, the amount at stake, the lack of a likely dispute over material facts, and the absence of evidence that iCustom’s failure to appear resulted from excusable neglect. The policy favoring decisions on the merits weighed slightly against default judgment but did not overcome the other factors.

Liability

For the ADA claim, the court concluded that Love adequately alleged that he was disabled, that iCustom was a place of public accommodation owned by iCustom, and that iCustom denied him full and equal access because of the architectural barrier. The court also concluded that Love adequately alleged that the barrier was prohibited by the ADA and could be readily removed by providing an accessible sales counter.

The court held that Love also adequately stated a UCRA claim. The UCRA treats an ADA violation as a UCRA violation, and Love’s UCRA claim arose from the same facts as his ADA claim.

Damages and Other Relief

The court granted Love $4,000 in statutory damages under the UCRA. It concluded that Love alleged knowledge of the barrier and difficulty and discomfort resulting from it, and that his allegations involved one visit to iCustom.

The court granted injunctive relief under the ADA. It ordered iCustom to provide a sales counter at iCustom that is 36 inches or lower in height and complies with ADA 2010 Standards §§ 904.4 and 904.4.1.

Love requested $4,690 in attorney’s fees and costs. The court found that the requested attorney hourly rates were not adequately justified and would result in a windfall, but it found the requested 7.1 hours of work reasonable. The court approved hourly rates of $475 for Mark Potter and Russell Handy, $350 for Amanda Seabock, and $300 for Faythe Gutierrez, resulting in $2,775 in attorney’s fees. It also awarded $900 in litigation costs, including filing, service, and investigative costs. The court therefore granted in part and denied in part Love’s request for attorney’s fees and costs, awarding a total of $3,675 for those items.

Disposition

Judge Lucy H. Koh granted Love’s motion for default judgment against iCustom for violating the ADA and UCRA. The court awarded $4,000 in statutory damages and $3,675 in attorney’s fees and costs, and entered the injunction requiring an accessible sales counter.