Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01682/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01682-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rafael Arroyo, Jr.
Plaintiff
Chase, Inc.
Defendant
J.S.T. LLC
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAFAEL ARROYO, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

J.S.T. LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-01682-DAD-SAB

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 

/////

/////

/////

Case 1:18-cv-01682-DAD-SAB Document 27 Filed 01/02/20 Page 1 of 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

2

otherwise appeared in this action.1 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.) 

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 

 

1

 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.) 

Case 1:18-cv-01682-DAD-SAB Document 27 Filed 01/02/20 Page 2 of 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

3

27574 Bernard Drive, Kettleman City, California, in accordance with the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Americans with Disabilities Act 

Accessibility Guidelines;

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 31, 2019 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01682-DAD-SAB Document 27 Filed 01/02/20 Page 3 of 3