Johnson v. Lo

Background

Scott Johnson sued Shit-Fong Lo, alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Johnson alleged that Lo, individually and as trustee of The Chi Chiu Lo Trust, owned the property containing Lucretia Plaza, where Johnson encountered barriers to accessible parking. Johnson alleged that he visited the property three times and found that the only parking space reserved for people with disabilities had slopes exceeding the ADA requirements.

Lo did not respond to the complaint. The clerk entered default, and Johnson moved for default judgment. Judge Hamilton referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse for a report and recommendation.

Jurisdiction and Service

The recommendation concluded that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the ADA claim because it arose under federal law and supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim because the claims shared related facts. It also concluded that the court had personal jurisdiction over Lo because he owned the California property at issue and public records indicated that he resided in California.

The recommendation found that service was adequate. A process server attempted personal service three times at Lo’s listed address, left the summons and complaint with Lo’s mother after the third attempt, explained the general nature of the documents, and mailed copies to Lo. The recommendation concluded that these steps satisfied California’s substitute-service requirements.

Claims and Default Judgment

For the ADA claim, the recommendation found that Johnson adequately alleged that he was disabled, that Lo owned property containing a place of public accommodation, and that Johnson was denied access because of architectural barriers. Johnson alleged that the accessible parking space had slopes exceeding 2.1 percent, while the applicable accessibility guidelines require slopes not exceeding 2 percent. An investigator also inspected the space and confirmed that it was not compliant.

The recommendation further found that Johnson adequately alleged that removing the barriers was readily achievable, meaning it could be done without much difficulty or expense. Because conduct violating the ADA also violates the Unruh Act under California law, the recommendation found both claims adequately pleaded.

Applying the factors used to evaluate default judgment, the recommendation concluded that Johnson would be prejudiced without a judgment, the amount at stake was not substantial, there was no indication that Lo’s default resulted from excusable neglect, and there was no evidence of a dispute about material facts. Although the law favors decisions on the merits, Lo’s failure to answer made such a decision impracticable.

Remedies

Johnson requested an order requiring Lo to bring the accessible parking space into compliance with the ADA guidelines. The recommendation found that injunctive relief was warranted.

Johnson requested $12,000 in statutory damages under the Unruh Act, based on three visits. The recommendation concluded that Johnson had not shown that damages should be awarded for multiple visits. It recommended limiting statutory damages to the first occasion on which he encountered the barriers, for an award of $4,000.

Johnson also requested $2,076 in attorney fees. The recommendation found that the attorneys’ and legal assistants’ 6.45 hours of work were reasonable but that the billed hourly rates were too high for the routine nature of the case. Using reduced hourly rates, it calculated a reasonable fee award of $1,466.50. It found the requested $845 in litigation costs reasonable.

Recommendation and Status

Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse recommended that Judge Phyllis Hamilton grant Johnson’s motion for default judgment and enter judgment totaling $6,311.50: $4,000 in statutory damages, $1,466.50 in attorney fees, and $845 in costs. The recommendation also included the requested order requiring Lo to make the accessible parking space compliant. The parties were given fourteen days after service to object. The opinion text provided is a report and recommendation; it does not state that Judge Hamilton had adopted it or entered the final judgment.