Johnson v. Shao

Background

Scott Johnson alleged that he has significant manual dexterity impairments, is a C-5 quadriplegic, cannot walk, and uses a wheelchair for mobility. He alleged that Shifen Shao owned the property at 5043 Graves Ave. in San Jose, California, where Jack Tian Acupuncture operated, and that she owned it in January and March 2020. Johnson alleged that he visited the property during those months and found no wheelchair-accessible parking that complied with federal standards. He said he intended to return after the property became accessible but was deterred by the lack of accessible parking.

Johnson sued under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought an injunction, statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. Shao did not appear or respond. At Johnson’s request, the clerk entered default, and Johnson moved for default judgment, meaning judgment based on the defendant’s failure to defend the case.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that it had federal-question jurisdiction over the Americans with Disabilities Act claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. It also found that it had personal jurisdiction over Shao. The court determined that Shao had been properly served personally with the summons and complaint.

Applying the factors used to decide whether to enter default judgment, the court found that all seven factors supported judgment. The court concluded that Johnson would be prejudiced without a judgment, that the requested statutory damages were proportional to the alleged conduct, and that there was no indication that Shao’s failure to respond resulted from excusable neglect. Because Shao did not participate, the court found no apparent dispute about material facts and concluded that deciding the case on the merits was not possible.

The court found that Johnson adequately alleged an Americans with Disabilities Act claim. It concluded that he alleged a qualifying disability, that Shao owned a place of public accommodation, that Johnson encountered an access barrier, and that removing the barrier was readily achievable. The court also found that the allegations sufficiently supported an Unruh Act claim because, as the court stated, an Americans with Disabilities Act violation necessarily constitutes an Unruh Act violation.

Relief Granted

The court granted Johnson’s request for an injunction requiring Shao to provide a wheelchair-accessible parking space at 5043 Graves Ave. in San Jose, California, in compliance with the 2010 ADA Accessibility Guidelines.

Johnson requested $8,000 in statutory damages—$4,000 for each of two visits. The court awarded $4,000, explaining that it had previously declined to award separate statutory damages for multiple visits to the same facility on a default-judgment motion.

Johnson requested $2,315 in attorney’s fees and also sought service, filing, and investigation costs. The court reduced the requested attorney billing rates but found the claimed 9.1 hours reasonable. It awarded $1,562.50 in attorney’s fees and $867.50 in costs, for a total award of $2,430 in fees and costs.

Order

The court granted in part Johnson’s motion for default judgment, awarded $4,000 in statutory damages, awarded $2,430 in attorney’s fees and costs, and granted the accessibility injunction. It also ordered Johnson to promptly serve Shao with the order and file proof of service, and required Johnson to submit a proposed judgment and injunction consistent with the order within seven days.