Sepulveda v. Taqueria y Carniceria Martinez LLC

Background

Richard Sepulveda sued Taqueria y Carniceria Martinez LLC, Jirong Zhang, and Feng Xin Li under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He alleged that the business was a place open to the public and that architectural barriers denied him access because of his disability. The alleged barriers involved the designated parking space, the path from the parking area to the entrance, and the restroom.

The court found that the defendants were properly served. They did not appear or defend the action, and the Clerk entered default on June 8, 2023. Sepulveda served the defendants with his motion for default judgment and supporting declaration on January 19, 2024. The defendants also did not appear at the March 22, 2024 hearing.

Court’s Findings

The court found that Sepulveda adequately alleged that he was disabled under the ADA, that the business was a public accommodation, that he was denied access because of his disability, and that the business had architectural barriers whose removal was readily achievable. The court also found that he had standing because he alleged that he was denied full and equal access, was deterred from returning, and planned to return when the business became accessible.

The court identified alleged problems with the parking space, including inadequate dimensions and markings, missing or incomplete signage, the lack of a properly designated van-accessible space, and the location and slope of the space. It also identified an allegedly excessive slope and change in level along the path to the entrance. The alleged restroom barriers included improperly placed grab bars, insufficient turning space, inadequate clearance beneath the sink, a high towel dispenser, and a door handle requiring twisting and grasping.

The court concluded that Sepulveda sufficiently pleaded an ADA disability-discrimination claim. It also stated that the factors governing default judgment favored entering judgment because the defendants had not appeared, Sepulveda would otherwise likely lack another avenue for recovery, and a merits decision was impractical without defendants participating in the case. The court noted that Sepulveda was no longer seeking statutory damages. The court had previously declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims.

Ruling

The court GRANTED Sepulveda’s motion for default judgment and entered judgment in his favor against all three defendants. It awarded $2,695.00 in attorney’s fees and $778.50 in costs.

The court also granted an injunction requiring the defendants to provide a parking space complying with specified federal and California accessibility requirements; an accessible route from the parking space to the main entrance; and an accessible restroom, including compliant grab bars, turning space, and sink clearance. The injunction stated that the requirements were subject to the ADA’s “readily achievable” standard and could be satisfied through alternative methods if the specified work was not readily achievable. The Clerk was directed to close the file.