Block v. Gennaro's Limited Liability Company

Background

Hendrik Block brought a disability-rights action based on alleged accessibility barriers at a store then known as Kwik & Convenient in San Jose, California. He asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California Health and Safety Code sections 19953 and following. He sought injunctive relief, statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

Block alleged that he is substantially limited in walking and uses mobility aids. During a September 30, 2020 visit, he allegedly could not find an accessible parking space or a ramp to the walkway leading to the entrance. He also alleged additional exterior barriers, including excessive slopes, inadequate accessible routes, problems with parking stalls, an improperly placed curb ramp, and insufficient maneuvering space at the entrance.

Block settled with Ganeshkrupa 86 Corporation, which operated the facility, and dismissed that defendant. Gennaro’s was identified as the owner of the real property where the facility was located. Gennaro’s had initially appeared through counsel, but the court allowed its lawyers to withdraw while requiring them to continue forwarding court papers. The court warned Gennaro’s that it could not proceed without a lawyer and that failing to obtain new counsel could result in its pleadings being stricken or its default being entered.

Gennaro’s did not obtain new counsel or otherwise continue defending the case. At Block’s request, the clerk entered Gennaro’s default on March 23, 2022. Gennaro’s did not ask to set aside the default and did not respond to Block’s motion for default judgment.

Court’s analysis

The court found that it had jurisdiction over the federal Americans with Disabilities Act claim and supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. It also found personal jurisdiction over Gennaro’s. The court concluded that service was sufficient, noting that Gennaro’s had appeared through counsel and answered the complaint.

For a default judgment, the court considered the factors used in the Ninth Circuit, including prejudice to the plaintiff, the apparent merits of the claims, the sufficiency of the complaint, the amount at stake, the possibility of disputed facts, whether the default resulted from excusable neglect, and the preference for decisions on the merits. The court treated the complaint’s well-pleaded liability allegations as true, but did not automatically accept the allegations concerning damages.

The court concluded that Block’s allegations sufficiently supported an Americans with Disabilities Act claim. It found that Block alleged a qualifying disability, that the facility was a public accommodation, and that Gennaro’s owned the property. The court also found that Block had standing to seek injunctive relief because he alleged that he personally encountered disability-related barriers and was deterred from visiting the facility.

The court determined that Block had sufficiently alleged architectural barriers prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act. These included problems with routes from the sidewalk and accessible parking to the entrance, the location of an exterior ice freezer, the number and condition of accessible parking stalls, a newly installed curb ramp, and maneuvering clearances at the entrance. The court also concluded that Block had initially shown that removing the barriers was readily achievable, meaning it could be accomplished without much difficulty or expense. Because Gennaro’s did not defend the case, it did not meet its burden of showing otherwise.

The court further concluded that the alleged Americans with Disabilities Act violations also supported Block’s Unruh Act claim. It found that the default judgment factors favored entering judgment because Gennaro’s failure to participate left Block without another means of obtaining relief against that defendant.

Relief awarded

The court found that Block was entitled to injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Act. However, it found that his proposed judgment did not describe the required repairs and the relevant accessibility standards with enough detail. The court therefore ordered Block to submit a proposed injunction complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), including specific terms and a reasonably detailed description of the required acts.

Private plaintiffs cannot obtain monetary damages under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court nevertheless awarded Block $4,000 in statutory damages under the Unruh Act for his one visit to the facility.

The court awarded attorney’s fees using the lodestar method, which generally multiplies reasonable hours by reasonable hourly rates. It accepted the requested hourly rates but deducted 25 hours for settlement discussions and a settlement conference that did not involve Gennaro’s. This produced a lodestar of $53,553.50. After subtracting the $12,250 payment connected to Block’s settlement with Ganeshkrupa 86, the court awarded $41,303.50 in attorney’s fees.

The court also reduced the requested costs from $10,494.38 to $10,444.38 because the documentation supported $345, rather than $395, for subpoena service. The court’s final order granted Block’s motion for default judgment against Gennaro’s, awarded $4,000 in statutory damages, $41,303.50 in attorney’s fees, and $10,444.38 in costs, and required Block to submit the proposed injunction and advise whether he would dismiss the California Health and Safety Code claim by July 8, 2022.