Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 5, 2021

Whitaker v. Lucky Opco LLC

Judge
Charles Breyer
Docket
3:21-cv-01478
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
9
ADA / DisabilityCivil ProcedureCivil Rights
In one sentence

In Brian Whitaker v. Lucky Opco LLC, Judge Breyer granted default judgment and ordered accessibility changes, damages, fees, and costs.

Who this affects

Brian Whitaker received an accessibility injunction, $4,000 in statutory damages, $1,275 in attorneys’ fees, and $835 in costs and litigation expenses. Lucky Opco LLC was ordered to provide a wheelchair-accessible sales counter.

What happened

Brian Whitaker, a wheelchair user with quadriplegia, sued Lucky Opco LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He alleged that the store’s sales counter was too high for him to use and that he was deterred from returning.

The store did not respond to the lawsuit, so Whitaker asked for a default judgment. The court found that it had jurisdiction, that the store had been properly served, and that Whitaker’s allegations supported his claims and requested remedies.

Judge Breyer granted the motion for default judgment. The court ordered the store to provide a wheelchair-accessible sales counter and awarded Whitaker $4,000 in damages, $1,275 in attorneys’ fees, and $835 in costs and litigation expenses.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Whitaker v. Lucky Opco LLC · No. 3:21-cv-01478
Judge
Charles Breyer
Date
Aug. 5, 2021

Background

Brian Whitaker, who has quadriplegia and uses a wheelchair, alleged that he visited the Lucky Store in Palo Alto, California, in January 2021. He alleged that the sales counter was too high to use from a wheelchair and that an employee could not successfully lower the point-of-sale machine to another counter. Whitaker alleged that transactions therefore had to occur at the higher counter.

Whitaker sued Lucky Opco LLC under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The defendant did not file a response. After the clerk entered default, Whitaker moved for default judgment, an order requiring an accessible sales counter, $4,000 in statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the ADA claim under the federal-question statute and supplemental jurisdiction over the related Unruh Act claim. It also concluded that it had personal jurisdiction over Lucky Opco LLC and that the defendant had been properly served.

The court applied the seven factors used in the Ninth Circuit to decide whether default judgment is appropriate. It found that the factors favored judgment because Whitaker otherwise would have no way to recover for the alleged violations, his complaint adequately supported the requested relief, the amount at stake was reasonable, there was no apparent dispute over material facts, and there was no indication that the defendant’s failure to participate resulted from excusable neglect. The court also noted that deciding the case on the merits was impractical because the defendant had not appeared.

The court found that Whitaker had standing to seek an injunction because he alleged that he personally encountered the barrier and was deterred from visiting the store. It also found that he adequately pleaded an ADA claim: he was disabled under the ADA, the store was a place of public accommodation, and the alleged sales-counter conditions violated applicable accessibility standards. The court further held that the adequately pleaded ADA violation also adequately pleaded an Unruh Act violation because an ADA violation is a violation of that California law.

Ruling and relief

Judge Charles Breyer granted Whitaker’s motion for default judgment. The court ordered Lucky Opco LLC to provide a wheelchair-accessible sales counter, awarded $4,000 in statutory damages for the single Unruh Act violation, awarded $1,275 in attorneys’ fees, and awarded $835 in litigation expenses and costs. The court reduced the requested attorneys’ fees after determining that lower hourly rates were reasonable, while finding that the 6.3 hours billed were reasonable.

The authoritative version

Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.