Case ID: f-appx_648/html/0419-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John DEUTSH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. RICHARD WATSON INSURANCE AGENCY, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-51168
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 13, 2016.
    Omar Weaver Rosales, Rosales Law Firm, L.L.C., Austin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    
      Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

John Deutsh, who uses a wheelchair for mobility, alleges that he tried to visit Richard Watson Insurance Company’s place of business, but was unable to do so because there was no wheelchair accessible parking or ramp. He then brought this lawsuit against the company for violating accessibility requirements under Title III of the American Disabilities Act. After the insurance company failed to respond to Deutsh’s suit, Deutsh filed a motion for entry of default judgment. The district court denied the motion — without prejudice — because it determined that Deutsh had not shown he was entitled to injunctive relief, which is the only relief available to him under the statute. 42 U.S.C.A, § 12188; Perez v. Doctors Hosp. at Renaissance, Ltd., 624 Fed.Appx. 180, 183 (5th Cir.2015) (per curiam).

This court is required to determine the basis for jurisdiction, even when the parties have failed to do so. Muse v. Aranda, 263 F.3d 164, 2001 WL 803800, at *1 (5th Cir.2001) (per curiam). We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Deutsh’s motion for the entry of default judgment. See Adult Film Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Thetford, 776 F.2d 113, 115 (5th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (holding that a denial of a default judgment without final judgment on the merits is not an appealable final order); Muse, 263 F.3d at *1 (the same). This case is still live in district court, however, and Deutsh may file another motion for default judgment explaining why he is entitled to injunctive relief under the statute.

The appeal is therefore DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.