Garcia v. Gundogdu
- James Donato
- 3:22-cv-00134
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Garcia v. Gundogdu, Judge Donato denied Garcia’s default-judgment motion without prejudice because the record did not show defendants operated a public accommodation.
Orlando Garcia’s request for default judgment was denied without prejudice; Tony Gundogdu and Aynur Gundogdu remained in default, and the order allowed Garcia to renew his request if he supplied additional support.
What happened
Garcia sued Tony Gundogdu and Aynur Gundogdu under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The defendants did not appear, and the clerk entered defaults against them. Garcia then asked the court to enter judgment based on that nonappearance.
The court declined a magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant default judgment with a reduced attorneys’ fee award. It found that Garcia’s complaint and supporting declaration showed only that the defendants owned property where Redwood City Vape operated, not that they owned, leased, or operated the business or another place of public accommodation as required for the ADA claim.
The court denied Garcia’s motion for default judgment without prejudice, meaning he may renew it. Judge Donato said a renewed motion must address whether removing the alleged barriers was readily achievable and must revise any request for fees and costs.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. Gundogdu · No. 3:22-cv-00134
- James Donato
- Mar. 13, 2023
Background
Orlando Garcia sued Tony Gundogdu and Aynur Gundogdu, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The defendants did not appear. At Garcia’s request, the clerk entered defaults against both defendants.
Garcia moved for default judgment, which is a judgment entered because a defendant failed to respond or participate. A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion but reducing the requested attorneys’ fees. The district court declined that recommendation.
Reason for the Decision
The ADA provision at issue permits suits against a person who owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation. The complaint alleged only that Tony and Aynur Gundogdu owned the real property at or about 411 Lathrop Street in Redwood City, California, where the business “Redwood City Vape” operated. Garcia’s attorney submitted a declaration making a similar statement based on a public-record search.
The court concluded that the record did not establish that the defendants owned, leased, leased to, or operated a place of public accommodation. The court also noted that the magistrate judge’s recommendation described the defendants as owning Redwood City Vape, but the complaint paragraphs cited in the recommendation alleged only ownership of the property, not ownership of the business.
Ruling
The court denied Garcia’s motion for default judgment, Docket No. 22, without prejudice. The order therefore did not bar Garcia from renewing the request. If Garcia renews the motion, the court said he must explain in greater detail how he met his burden to show that removing the alleged barriers was “readily achievable” under the ADA. Any renewed request for fees and costs must also be modified as described in the magistrate judge’s recommendation and must follow the court’s conclusions in similar ADA cases about hourly rates and investigative costs.
Judge James Donato ordered: “IT IS SO ORDERED.”
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.