Opinion
No. 1:18-cv-01682-DAD-SAB
12-31-2019
RAFAEL ARROYO, JR., Plaintiff, v. J.S.T. LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
(Doc. Nos. 15. 24)
Plaintiff filed this action on December 11, 2018, against defendants J.S.T. LLC ("JST") and Chase, Inc. ("Chase") (collectively, "defendants") alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.; and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51, et seq. (Doc. No. 1.)
Defendant Chase was served with a summons on February 17, 2019, and the executed summons was filed with the court on March 4, 2019. (Doc. No. 6.) Defendant JST was served with a summons on February 17, 2019, and the executed summons was filed with the court on March 4, 2019. (Doc. No. 7.) Neither defendant filed an answer, responsive pleading, or ///// ///// ///// otherwise appeared in this action. On March 26, 2019, plaintiff filed requests for entry of default against defendants. (Doc. Nos. 8, 9.) On March 27, 2019, default was entered by the Clerk of Court against defendants. (Doc. Nos. 10, 11.)
The assigned magistrate judge found a discrepancy with the filed proofs of service and ordered supplemental briefing prior to the scheduled hearing on the motion for default judgment. (Doc. No. 16.) Plaintiff filed supplemental briefing and an affidavit from the process server which the magistrate judge found satisfactorily addressed the noted discrepancy, as explained in the findings and recommendations. (Doc. Nos. 17; 18; 24 at 7-10.) --------
On August 9, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. (Doc. No. 15.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On October 3, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff's motion for default judgment be granted. (Doc. No. 24.) The assigned magistrate judge reduced the requested attorneys' fees based on the prevailing hourly rate in this district. (Id. at 22-27.) The findings and recommendations provided that any party could file objections thereto within fourteen (14) days. (Id. at 28.) To date, no objections have been filed and the time for doing so has expired.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly:
1. The findings and recommendations issued October 3, 2019 (Doc. No. 24) are adopted in full;
2. The motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 15) is granted in part, with the hourly reductions from the fees sought as recommended by the magistrate judge;
3. Plaintiff is awarded $4,000.00 in statutory damages, $3,060.00 in attorneys' fees and $650.00 in costs, for a total award of $7,710.00;
4. Plaintiff is granted an injunction requiring defendants to provide disability access by removing architectural barriers and providing accessible paths of travel at
27574 Bernard Drive, Kettleman City, California, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines;IT IS SO ORDERED.
5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in plaintiff's favor and close this case; and
6. Plaintiff is directed to mail a copy of this order to defendants at their last known addresses.
Dated: December 31 , 2019
/s/_________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE