Garcia v. Boddum
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:21-cv-04926
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Garcia v. Boddum, Judge Hamilton granted Garcia’s motion for default judgment on disability-access claims and granted injunctive and monetary relief.
Orlando Garcia obtained default judgment and injunctive and monetary relief against Jerry Boddum and Mary Ann Boddum. The opinion does not state the final amounts or specific terms of that relief.
What happened
In Garcia v. Boddum, Orlando Garcia alleged that Jerry Boddum and Mary Ann Boddum denied him meaningful access to their tattoo parlor because it lacked a wheelchair-accessible path and accessible door hardware. Garcia has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair for mobility. He brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The defendants were personally served but did not respond. The clerk entered default against each defendant, and Garcia moved for default judgment. The court found that it had authority to hear both claims, that service was proper, and that the allegations established the required elements of the disability-access claims. The motion sought $10,822 in total, including statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted the motion for default judgment. The court also granted Garcia injunctive and monetary relief, with the details set out in a corresponding judgment.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. Boddum · No. 4:21-cv-04926
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Jan. 21, 2022
Background
Orlando Garcia sued Jerry Boddum and Mary Ann Boddum, alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Garcia alleged that he has cerebral palsy, uses a wheelchair for mobility, and was denied meaningful access to real property at 4917 Telegraph Avenue in Oakland, California, identified in the opinion as “Tattoo 13.” He alleged that the property lacked wheelchair-accessible paths and accessible door hardware.
The defendants were served with the summons and complaint on July 20, 2021, and August 12, 2021. They did not respond. The clerk entered default against each defendant on October 22, 2021. Garcia then moved for default judgment, serving the motion on the defendants on December 16, 2021.
Jurisdiction and Service
The court concluded that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the ADA claim because it arose under federal law. It exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim because that claim shared a common set of operative facts with the ADA claim. The court also found personal jurisdiction over the defendants based on their ownership of the California property at issue and public records suggesting that they resided in California. It found that the defendants had been personally served and therefore had notice of the action.
Default-Judgment Analysis
The court applied the seven factors from Eitel v. McCool for deciding whether to enter default judgment. It found that every factor favored default judgment. Garcia would otherwise lack a remedy because the defendants had not responded; the complaint adequately alleged the ADA and Unruh Act claims; the amount sought was not substantial in relation to the alleged conduct; the material allegations concerning liability were deemed admitted after default; the defendants had been given notice of the action; and their failure to respond made a decision on the merits impractical.
For the ADA claim, the court found that Garcia was disabled within the meaning of the statute, that the defendants’ tattoo parlor was a place of public accommodation, and that Garcia was denied access because the property lacked a wheelchair path and doors with accessible hardware. The court stated that the Unruh Act operates virtually identically to the ADA for purposes relevant here and concluded that Garcia satisfied the elements of both claims.
Garcia sought a total of $10,822, consisting of $4,000 in statutory damages per defendant and $2,882 in attorney fees and costs. The opinion does not separately state the final amounts or the specific terms of the injunctive relief; it refers to the corresponding judgment for those details.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted Garcia’s motion for default judgment. The court also granted Garcia injunctive and monetary relief, as detailed in the corresponding judgment. The court vacated the hearing that had been set for January 27, 2022.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.