Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00173/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00173-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JASWANT SINGH, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0173 CKD

ORDER

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.1 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,

2

and good cause appearing therefor, 

THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

/////

 

1

 Also pending before the court are plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against defendant 

Singh and motion for default judgment against defendant Mehra. These matters were submitted 

on the papers. ECF No. 32. Defendant Singh was ordered to file opposition to the motion for 

summary judgment no later than June 24, 2016, but failed to do so. As explained below, the court 

finds that entry of default judgment against both defendants is appropriate. The motion for 

summary judgment will therefore be denied as moot.

2

 By order filed June 16, 2016, defendant Singh was ordered to file opposition to the motion for 

sanctions no later than June 22, 2016 and cautioned that failure to file opposition would result in 

entry of the relief requested on the motion. ECF No. 32. No opposition has been filed.

Case 2:15-cv-00173-CKD Document 33 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiff 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.

The 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. 

The 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 $4,0003

 

3

 In addition to the statutory damages sought against defendant Mehra, in the motion for 

summary judgment, plaintiff also seeks statutory damages against defendant Singh in the amount 

of $8,000. The affidavits submitted by plaintiff in connection with the motions for default 

judgment and summary judgment establish that plaintiff encountered the architectural barriers on 

Case 2:15-cv-00173-CKD Document 33 Filed 06/29/16 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

pursuant to California Civil Code section 52(a)4and attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of 

$4,415 as well as injunctive relief.

Entry 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). 

/////

/////

 

more than three occasions. Because defendants are jointly and severally liable on plaintiff’s 

claims, the court will award $12,000 in statutory damages.

4

 The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides, in relevant part, for a minimum statutory damage amount 

of $4,000 per violation. Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a).

Case 2:15-cv-00173-CKD Document 33 Filed 06/29/16 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing date of July 6, 2016 on plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is vacated.

2. Plaintiff’s 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).

3. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 31) is granted.

4. 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.

5. 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.

 6. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 30) is denied as moot.

7. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 

Dated: June 29, 2016

4 johnson-singh0173.def

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00173-CKD Document 33 Filed 06/29/16 Page 4 of 4