From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brooks v. Morphe, LLC

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 29, 2022
2:20-cv-1219 KJM DB (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2022)

Opinion

2:20-cv-1219 KJM DB

11-29-2022

VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MORPHE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant.


ORDER

DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On September 12, 2022, plaintiff filed a renewed motion for default judgment and noticed the matter for hearing before the undersigned on December 2, 2022, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(19). (ECF Nos. 31 & 35.) Plaintiff's motion seeks default judgment on claims that the defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. Having reviewed plaintiff's briefing, the undersigned will deny the motion without prejudice to renewal.

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) the undersigned finds the matter suitable for resolution without a hearing.

In this regard, plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on June 17, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) The complaint is a class action complaint brought by plaintiff individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. On October 16, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. (ECF No. 13.) On February 16, 2021, the undersigned denied that motion without prejudice to renewal. (ECF No. 20.)

In the February 16, 2021 order the undersigned advised plaintiff that the motion for default was “defective in several respects[.]” (Id. at 1.) One of those defects was plaintiff's reliance on vague factual allegations concerning plaintiff's “numerous visits to Defendant's website” including a “2020” visit. (Id. at 2.) The undersigned went on to advise plaintiff that neither the complaint nor motion for default judgment provided “the dates of' plaintiff's visits. (Id.) And that plaintiff failed to “file a declaration in support of the motion for default judgment.” (Id.)

Nonetheless, plaintiff has again failed to file a declaration in support of the renewed motion for default judgment. And the renewed motion for default judgment again relies simply on the vague and conclusory allegation that plaintiff “visited Defendant's website numerous times, including in 2020.” (Pl.'s MDJ (ECF No. 31) at 9.)

It is true that upon entry of default the complaint's factual allegations regarding liability are taken as true. Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe & Concrete Prods., 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th Cir. 1983). However, it is also true that the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981). Here, plaintiff has again offered only a conclusory allegation devoid of evidentiary support.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's September 12, 2022 motion for default judgment (ECF No. 31) is denied without prejudice to renewal of a motion that cures the defects noted above; and

2. The December 2, 2022 hearing of defendant's motion is vacated.


Summaries of

Brooks v. Morphe, LLC

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 29, 2022
2:20-cv-1219 KJM DB (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2022)
Case details for

Brooks v. Morphe, LLC

Case Details

Full title:VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 29, 2022

Citations

2:20-cv-1219 KJM DB (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2022)