2:20-cv-07517
C.D. Cal.Mar 9, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Leemanuel Weilch is a wheelchair user who alleges he was denied access to Ramona’s Mexican Food (located at 16300 Crenshaw Blvd., Torrance) on March 11 and April 18, 2020 because of inaccessible parking.
- Weilch’s Complaint asserts that parking spaces lacked van-accessible markings, a “NO PARKING” warning, an adequately wide access aisle, the International Symbol of Accessibility, and proper leveling/slope.
- Weilch sued under Title III of the ADA (state construction-access claims were dismissed without prejudice); he served Lexlux Associates, LP, which did not respond. The clerk entered default.
- Weilch moved for default judgment and for attorneys’ fees; the Court considered the motion on the papers.
- The District Court denied the default-judgment motion, found Weilch failed to plead an ADA violation (notably failing to allege that the defendant provided parking to the public and lacking factual detail about existing conditions), set aside the clerk’s default, denied fees, and granted Weilch 21 days to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment should be entered | Weilch sought a default judgment after clerk entered default for Lexlux’s failure to answer | Lexlux did not respond to the complaint or appear | Denied: court exercised discretion under Eitel factors and found default judgment improper |
| Whether Weilch stated an ADA Title III claim (architectural barriers) | Weilch alleged specific ADAAG parking violations (no van markings, no access aisle of 96 inches, improper slope, missing ISA symbol) | Lexlux did not respond; court treated allegations against defendant but required factual predicates | Dismissed for failure to state a claim: Weilch did not allege defendant provided parking to the public and plead factual measurements/conditions to establish ADAAG violations |
| Sufficiency of pleadings to support entitlement to relief (Eitel factors 2–3) | Weilch contended complaint’s allegations were adequate to establish liability | No responsive factual dispute presented by Lexlux due to default, but court still required lawful sufficiency | Held insufficient: conclusory recitations of ADAAG violations without baseline factual detail cannot support default judgment |
| Relief sought (attorneys’ fees; relief upon default) | Weilch requested attorneys’ fees and default judgment | No response from Lexlux | Fees denied; default set aside; plaintiff given leave to amend within 21 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089 (9th Cir. 1980) (default judgment is discretionary)
- TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1987) (well-pleaded allegations deemed true after default)
- Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1977) (allegations admitted on default but damages must be proven)
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (factors to consider before entering default judgment)
- Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (claims legally insufficient are not established by default)
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imps. (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (ADA claims assessed by reference to ADAAG)
- Molski v. M.J. Cable Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) (elements of Title III ADA claims)
- Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386 (9th Cir. 1978) (matters not established by pleadings cannot support judgment)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castworld Prods., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (application of Eitel factors)
- PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (default does not automatically entitle plaintiff to judgment)