ORLANDO GARCIA v. A5 HOSPITALITY LLC
No. 2:20-cv-02164-DJC-KJN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 11, 2023
Presently pending before the court is plaintiff Orlando Garcia‘s motion for default judgment against defendant A5 Hospitality, LLC, which is the only named defendant in this action.1 (ECF No. 17.) After defendant failed to file an opposition to the motion in accordance with Local Rule 230(c), the motion was submitted on the record and written briefing pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (ECF No. 20.)
For the reasons discussed below, the court DENIES plaintiff‘s motion for default judgment.
///
///
///
Plaintiff initiated this action on October 28, 2020, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
Plaintiff alleges that on October 19, 2020, he visited defendant‘s hotel website in order to make a hotel reservation for a trip to the Sacramento-area in January 2021. (Id. at ¶¶ 12-13, 15.) Upon visiting the website, plaintiff found it was missing information that he needed to determine whether the hotel met his specifications, and as a result, plaintiff was unable to make a reservation and was deterred from patronizing the hotel. (Id. at ¶¶ 16-19). Specifically, the website did not inform patrons whether the bedroom had clear floor space, if the toilet and sink are accessible, if the table/desk is accessible, or if the common areas are accessible. (Id. at ¶ 16.) The website did state that the hotel was accessible, indicated the number and type of beds (one king bed), informed of the bathing facilities (bathroom with handrails) and accessibility (wheelchair accessible). (Id.) Plaintiff does not allege that he was unable to obtain this information by contacting the hotel.
Plaintiff‘s motion for default judgment seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages pursuant to California‘s Unruh Civil Rights Act; and attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the ADA and California‘s Unruh Civil Rights Act. (Id.)
Defendant was served process on December 4, 2020, and plaintiff filed the proof of service on January 25, 2021. (ECF No. 4). On March 8, 2021, the clerk‘s office entered default against defendant. (ECF No. 10.) The instant motion was filed in April 2022. (ECF No. 17.)
////
////
////
Under
(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff‘s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action[,] (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts[,] (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.
Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Default judgments are ordinarily disfavored. Id. at 1472.
As a general rule, once default is entered, well-pleaded factual allegations in the operative complaint are taken as true, except for those allegations relating to damages. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (citing Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (per curiam)); accord Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 906 (9th Cir. 2002). In addition, although well-pleaded allegations in the complaint are admitted by a defendant‘s failure to respond, “necessary facts not contained in the pleadings, and claims which are legally insufficient, are not established by default.” Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1978)); accord DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh, 503 F.3d 847, 854 (9th Cir. 2007) (stating that a defendant does not admit facts that are not well-pled or conclusions of law); Abney v. Alameida, 334 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1235 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (“[A] default judgment may not be entered on a legally insufficient claim“). A party‘s default does not establish the amount of damages. Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560.
A. Appropriateness of the Entry of Default Judgment Under the Eitel Factors
Factor One: Possibility of Prejudice to Plaintiff
The first Eitel factor considers whether the plaintiff would suffer prejudice if default judgment is not entered, and such potential prejudice to the plaintiff militates in favor of granting a default judgment. See PepsiCo, Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1177. Here, plaintiff would potentially face prejudice if the court did not enter a default judgment. Absent entry of a default judgment, plaintiff would be without another recourse against defendant. Accordingly, the first Eitel factor favors the entry of a default judgment.
Factors Two and Three: Merits and Sufficiency of Complaint
The court considers the merits of plaintiff‘s substantive claims and the sufficiency of the complaint together below because of the relatedness of the two inquiries. The court must consider whether the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to state a claim that supports the relief sought. See Danning, 572 F.2d at 1388; PepsiCo, Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1175. Generally, well-pleaded factual allegations in the operative complaint are taken as true, except for those allegations relating to damages. TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (citing Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (per curiam)).
To state a claim under Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination by public accommodations, plaintiff must allege (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) defendant is a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) plaintiff was denied public accommodations by the defendant because of his disability. Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, plaintiff alleges defendant violated the ADA‘s reservations rule, under which a public accommodations’ reservations service must “[i]dentify and describe accessible features in the hotels and guest rooms […]“.
In Love v. Marriott Hotel Services., Inc., the plaintiff alleged the hotel violated the reservations rule by failing to describe certain accessible features. 40 F.4th 1043, 1045 (9th Cir. 2022). However, the court found the hotel website met the ADA standards because the website stated the hotel was accessible, listed some accessible features, and provided contact information where individuals could make further inquiries. Id. Here, plaintiff alleges the website did not describe certain accessible hotel features, such as whether there was compliant clear floor space,
Accordingly, plaintiff‘s complaint falls short of stating a cognizable claim that defendant violated the reservations rule. As plaintiff‘s ADA claim is insufficiently pleaded, the second and third factors therefore weigh against a finding of default. Danning, 572 F.2d at 1388 (“necessary facts not contained in the pleadings, and claims which are legally insufficient, are not established by default“).
In addition to the ADA claim, plaintiff asserts a claim under the Unruh Act (California state disability law). Because plaintiff‘s ADA claim is insufficiently pled, he has also failed to plead a violation of the Unruh Act.
Factor Four: The Sum of Money at Stake
Under the fourth factor cited in Eitel, “the court must consider the amount of money at stake in relation to the seriousness of Defendant‘s conduct.” PepsiCo, Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1176-77; see also Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castworld Prods., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 500 (C.D. Cal. 2003). In this case, plaintiff seeks a default judgment in the amount of $6,761.80 in fees and costs, plus $4,000 in statutory damages, for a total of $10,761.80. (ECF No. 17-1 at 10-11.) This is not a particularly large or unreasonable sum and does not weigh against default judgment.
Factor Five: The Possibility of a Dispute Concerning Material Facts
“The fifth Eitel factor considers the possibility of dispute as to any material facts in the case.” PepsiCo, Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1177. Although well-pleaded allegations in the complaint are admitted by a defendant‘s failure to respond, “necessary facts not contained in the pleadings, and claims which are legally insufficient, are not established by default.” Cripps, 980 F.2d at 1267 (citing Danning, 572 F.2d at 1388). As plaintiff‘s complaint is insufficiently pleaded, the fifth Eitel factor does not weigh in favor of granting default judgment.
////
In this case, there is simply no indication in the record that defendant‘s default was due to excusable neglect. Accordingly, this Eitel factor favors the entry of a default judgment.
Factor Seven: The Policy Favoring Decisions on the Merits
“Cases should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.” Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472. However, district courts have concluded with regularity that this policy, standing alone, is not dispositive, especially where a defendant fails to appear or defend itself in an action. PepsiCo, Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1177; see also Craigslist, Inc. v. Naturemarket, Inc., 694 F. Supp. 2d 1039, 1061 (N.D. Cal. 2010). Accordingly, although the court is cognizant of the policy in favor of decisions on the merits—and consistent with existing policy would prefer that this case be resolved on the merits—that policy does not, by itself, preclude the entry of default judgment.
IV. Conclusion
On balance, the court finds the Eitel factors favor denying default judgment, particularly in light of the court‘s finding that the motion does not seek default judgment on a plausibly pleaded claim. See DIRECTV, 503 F.3d at 854-55 (affirming denial of default judgment where plaintiff failed to state a claim); Dureau v. Allenbaugh, 708 F. App‘x 443, 444 (9th Cir. 2018) (allegations of necessary elements that were “wholly conclusory” such that plaintiff “failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted necessitate[ed] the denial of [plaintiff‘s] motion for default judgment“) (citation and internal punctuation marks omitted).
Accordingly, plaintiff‘s motion for default judgment is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within 28 days.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
- Plaintiff‘s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 17) is DENIED without prejudice;
////
////
Any amended complaint shall be filed within 28 days of this order.
Dated: August 11, 2023
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
garc.2164