United States District Court, E.D. California
CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the court is plaintiff’s motion for
sanctions. Because oral argument is not of material
assistance, this matter is submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.
L.R. 230(g). Upon review of the documents in support, no
opposition having been filed,  and good cause appearing
therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
moves for sanctions against defendant Singh for failure to
comply with the court’s order compelling discovery.
Plaintiff seeks entry of default judgment and for expenses
incurred in connection with the motion. By order filed May
13, 2016, defendant Singh was ordered to provide responses to
interrogatories and produce responsive documents. Defendant
Singh failed to comply with the court’s order. The
court notes that defendant Singh, other than filing an
answer, has failed to cooperate in this litigation. Defendant
Singh refused to participate in preparing a status report
prior to the scheduling conference, failed to appear at the
scheduling conference, did not oppose the motion to compel,
did not oppose the motion for sanctions, and did not oppose
the motion for summary judgment. The court finds
defendant’s failure to comply with the court’s
orders to be willful disobedience and concludes that entry of
default judgment is appropriate. See Henry v. Gill
Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 948 (9th Cir. 1993);
Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly
Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007). Defendant
was cautioned in both the order granting the motion to compel
and in the order directing defendant to file opposition to
the motion for sanctions that failure to comply with the
court’s orders could result in entry of default
judgment. Defendant has paid no heed to the court’s
orders and the court concludes that a lesser sanction will
serve no useful purpose.
court therefore turns to the question of the terms of the
default judgment. Plaintiff is a permanently disabled
wheelchair user. Defendants operate a business establishment,
the “Grand Save Market, ” located in Stockton,
California. The complaint alleges that plaintiff visited the
subject establishment in September, November and December,
2014 and encountered architectural barriers which denied him
full and equal access.
record reflects that defendants were properly served with
process. Default was entered against defendant Mehra on March
25, 2015 and by this order default is entered against
defendant Singh. The motions for sanctions, summary judgment
and default judgment have been served on both defendants.
Plaintiff seeks an entry of default judgment in the amount of
$4, 000 pursuant to California Civil Code section
52(a) and attorney’s fees and costs in the
amount of $4, 415 as well as injunctive relief.
of default effects an admission of all well-pleaded
allegations of the complaint by the defaulted party.
Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557 (9th
Cir. 1977). The court finds the well pleaded allegations of
the complaint state a claim for which relief can be granted.
Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir.
1976). The memorandum of points and authorities and
affidavits filed in support of the motion for entry of
default judgment and the motion for summary judgment also
support the finding that plaintiff is entitled to the relief
in the form of statutory damages, attorney’s fees and
injunctive relief requested, which does not differ in kind
from the relief requested in the complaint. Henry v.
Sneiders, 490 F.2d 315, 317 (9th Cir.), cert.
denied, 419 U.S. 832 (1974). Plaintiff is entitled to
statutory damages for each “offense, ” i.e., each
obstructed visit. See Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the
Arts, 370 F.3d 837, 847 (9th Cir. 2004); see also
Feezor v. DeTaco, Inc., 431 F.Supp.2d 1088 (S.D. Cal.
2005). The amount of attorney’s fees requested by
plaintiff is reasonable. With respect to plaintiff’s
claim for injunctive relief, the court finds that defendants
have failed to provide accessible parking spaces and an
accessible counter, as required by 28 Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 36, Appendix D, (“ADAAG”).
There are no policy considerations which preclude the entry
of default judgment of the type requested. See Eitel v.
McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-1472 (9th Cir. 1986)
(factors that may be considered by the court are possibility
of prejudice to the plaintiff, merits of plaintiff’s
substantive claim, sufficiency of the complaint, sum of money
at stake in the action; possibility of a dispute concerning
material facts; whether the default was due to excusable
neglect, and strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
hearing date of July 6, 2016 on plaintiffs motion for
sanctions is vacated.
Plaintiffs motion for sanctions is granted. The answer of
defendant Singh (ECF No. 9) is stricken and default is
entered against defendant Singh. Reasonable expenses of $600
incurred in connection with the motion for sanctions are
awarded to plaintiff against defendant Singh, in addition to
expenses in the amount of $600 previously awarded on the
motion to compel (ECF No. 25).
Plaintiffs motion for default judgment (ECF No. 31) is
Default judgment is entered against defendants Singh and
Mehra, jointly and severally. Plaintiff is awarded statutory
damages in the amount of $12, 000.00 and attorney’s
fees and costs in the amount of $4, 415.00, for the total sum
of $16, 415.00.
Plaintiff is granted an injunction requiring defendants to
provide property alterations to the property known as
“Grand Save Market, ” located at 2318 S. Airport
Way, Stockton, California that consist of the following, all
in accordance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of
1990 (ADA) and the Americans With Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) contained in 28 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 36, Appendix D: compliant accessible
parking spaces and transaction counter.
Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 30) ...