Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03875/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-03875-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerardo Hernandez
Plaintiff
Intelliz, Inc.
Defendant
Wing Sing Chong Company, Inc.,
Defendant

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERARDO HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

WING SING CHONG COMPANY, 

INC., and INTELLIZ, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-03875-NC 

REQUESTING REASSIGNMENT TO A 

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE; REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

GRANT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

In this ADA and Unruh Act case, plaintiff Gerardo Hernandez moves for default 

judgment against defendant Intelliz, Inc. Dkt. Nos. 18, 30. Hernandez seeks injunctive 

relief in the form of barrier removal at the defendant’s Edible Arrangements store as well 

as statutory damages. Id. Finding that the Eitel factors weigh in favor of granting default 

judgment, I RECOMMEND that default judgment be granted in favor of plaintiff Gerardo 

Hernandez and against defendant Intelliz. Additionally, I RECOMMEND that the Court 

order the injunctive relief and statutory damages sought.

I. Background

Plaintiff Gerardo Hernandez filed this action in July 2019 alleging that defendants

Intelliz, Inc. and Wing Sing Chong Company, Inc. violated the Americans with Disabilities 

Act due to accessibility barriers at an Edible Arrangements franchise location in Palo Alto, 

California. Dkt. No. 1, Complaint. Wing Sing Chong Company is the owner of the strip 

mall where Intelliz leases a storefront to operate the Edible Arrangement franchise it owns. 

Case 4:19-cv-03875-YGR Document 32 Filed 03/31/20 Page 1 of 5
 2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Id. at ¶¶ 6–10. Hernandez has physical disabilities requiring the use of a wheelchair for 

mobility and he drives a wheelchair van. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 19. Hernandez visited the Edible 

Arrangements location and encountered the following barriers: lack of a safe way to cross 

the driveway from the parking lot to the sidewalk in front of the store due to slopes and 

broken asphalt; no curb cut from the driveway to get onto the raised walkway; and

businesses with doors propped open blocking the entire walkway. Id. at ¶¶ 11–13.

Hernandez seeks $4,000 in statutory damages and a permanent injunction requiring 

removal of these barriers.

Hernandez served Intelliz in July 2019 and Wing Sing Chong Company in August 

2019. Dkt. Nos. 7, 11. The Court entered default against Intelliz on September 9, 2019

and entered default against Wing Sing Chong Company on December 12, 2019. Dkt. Nos. 

10, 15. On September 24, 2019, Veeresh Kollaru wrote to Plaintiff’s counsel “on behalf of 

Intelliz, Inc.” asking to be excluded from the case due to his understanding that his 

landlord was responsible for common area maintenance and due to his health. Dkt. No. 

18, Motion for Default Judgment, Ex. A. Plaintiff’s counsel responded, informing Mr. 

Kollaru that the Court had entered default on September 9, enclosing a copy of the entry of 

default, and advising Mr. Kollaru that Hernandez would not exclude Intelliz from the case 

but would allow him time to retain counsel. Dkt. No. 18, Ex. B. Plaintiff’s counsel 

received no response. Dkt. No. 18, Declaration of Celia McGuinness at ¶ 4.

Meanwhile, Hernandez settled in full with defendant Wing Sing Chong Company. 

Dkt. No. 24, Plaintiff’s Status Report. Hernandez has therefore withdrawn his motion for 

default judgment against Wing Sing Chong Company and now moves only for default 

judgment against Intelliz. Id. at 2. Additionally, Hernandez no longer seeks 

reimbursement of fees or costs against Intelliz and only seeks $4,000 in statutory damages 

and an order enjoining Intelliz to maintain accessible features at the property. Dkt. No. 30.

II. Legal Standard

Default may be entered against a party who fails to plead or otherwise defend an 

action and against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). 

Case 4:19-cv-03875-YGR Document 32 Filed 03/31/20 Page 2 of 5
 3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

After entry of default, the Court has discretion to grant default judgment on the merits of 

the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). In 

deciding whether to grant default judgment, the Court considers the following factors: 

(1) the merits of the plaintiff’s substantive claim; (2) the sufficiency of the complaint; (3) 

the sum of money at stake in the action; (4) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (5) 

the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to 

excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. 

McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986). The factual allegations of the 

complaint, except those concerning damages, are deemed admitted by the non-responding 

parties. Shanghai Automation Instrument, 194 F. Supp. 2d at 995; see also Geddes v. 

United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (“[t]he general rule of law is that upon 

default the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of 

damages, will be taken as true”). 

III. Discussion

The Court FINDS that the Eitel factors weigh in favor of granting default judgment 

against Intelliz. 

First and second, the Court finds that Hernandez’s substantive claims are 

meritorious and that his complaint is sufficient. Hernandez has alleged that he is disabled 

under the ADA and that he was denied access to a place of public accommodation owned 

or operated by Intelliz. Dkt. Nos. 1, 16; Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 730 (9th 

Cir. 2007). As a matter of law, lessors and lessees are jointly and severally liable for 

access barriers. Botosan v. McNally Realty, et al., 216 F.3d 927, 932 (9th Cir. 2000). He 

has also alleged that removal of the barriers at the property is readily achievable. Compl. 

at ¶ 21. 

Third, the sum of money at stake in this action—$4,000 in statutory damages—is 

neither substantial nor unreasonable in relation to the defendant’s conduct. PepsiCo, Inc. 

v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1176 (C.D. Cal. 2002). Statutory damages under 

the Unruh Act are set at a minimum of $4,000 per instance of discrimination. Cal. Civ. 

Case 4:19-cv-03875-YGR Document 32 Filed 03/31/20 Page 3 of 5
 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Code § 52(a). Hernandez experienced barriers to accessing the Edible Arrangements store

on one occasion on February 13, 2019. Compl. ¶¶ 9–15. Thus, $4,000 in statutory 

damages is appropriate.

Fourth, the plaintiff will be prejudiced without a granting of default judgment as he 

has no other manner to seek relief. Fifth, the Court finds that a dispute of material fact is 

unlikely here where defendants have not disputed the existence of the barriers at the 

property. Sixth, it is unlikely that the default here is due to excusable neglect because it 

appears that someone associated with Intelliz is aware of this action and at one point

expressed interest in defending it. Dkt. No. 18, Ex. A. Moreover, Hernandez has served 

the defendant with both the complaint as well as other documents throughout this case. Id. 

Finally, though policy favors decisions on the merits, such an outcome is unlikely 

or even impossible in this case because the defendant has not appeared. 

IV. Conclusion

The Court FINDS that the Eitel factors weigh in favor of granting default judgment 

in Hernandez’s favor and against defendant Intelliz, Inc.

Because not all parties have appeared in this case and therefore have not consented 

to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I request that the Clerk 

of Court REASSIGN this case to a District Court Judge.

I RECOMMEND that default judgment be entered in favor of Gerardo Hernandez

and against Intelliz, Inc. I RECOMMEND that the District Court Judge order the 

following relief:

Damages: $4,000 in statutory damages.

Injunctive Relief: 

Defendant Intelliz shall:

1. Maintain the facilities of the Edible Arrangements store at 2740 Middlefield 

Road, Palo Alto, California, in an accessible condition through the end of its

lease.

2. Follow the new policy of property owner Wing Sing Chong Co., Inc., that 

Case 4:19-cv-03875-YGR Document 32 Filed 03/31/20 Page 4 of 5
 5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

tenants of the property will not prop open their front doors during business hours 

because doing so blocks the accessible path of travel through the end of the 

lease. If tenants desire to prop open their doors during business hours, they must 

rehang the doors to open inward.

Finally, I RECOMMEND that the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce this relief 

through the end of Intelliz, Inc.’s lease of the subject property.

The plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to serve this Order on the defendant within 14 

days. Any party may object to this Order within 14 days of being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2020 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:19-cv-03875-YGR Document 32 Filed 03/31/20 Page 5 of 5