Acosta v. Martinez.

Opinion

JOSE ACOSTA, No. 1:19-cv-00307-AWI-EPG Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART v. (ECF Nos. 16, 26, 27) MARIA MARTINEZ, et al., Defendants. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Jose Acosta’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No. 16). On March 3, 2020, Magistrate Judge Erica Grosjean issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default be granted in part and denied in part. (ECF No. 26). The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties with instructions that any objections must be filed within fourteen days of service of the order. On March 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed an objection in part. (ECF No. 27). In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Plaintiff’s objections concerned the fee award. The Findings and Recommendations recommended denying Plaintiff’s requested $797.43 for certain costs because the cited source did not contain any itemized breakdown of those costs. (ECF No. 26, at 28). In his objections, Plaintiff noted he had inadvertently cited the wrong affidavit which contained supporting documentation for the $797.43 award. The documentation adequately shows Plaintiff’s $210.50 4:40 VOU EOIN NMC LO POI I er OY eve

costs for service of process, $400 for the filing fee, and $186.93 for investigations, totaling $797.43. Those types of out-of-pocket expenses “would normally be charged to a fee-paying client,” Harris v. Marhoefer, 24 F.3d 16, 19 (9th Cir. 1994), and are therefore recoverable. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are otherwise supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated March 3, 2020 (ECF No. 26) are ADOPTED CONSISTENT WITH THIS ORDER; 2. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is granted as to his claims under the ADA and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act; 3. Plaintiff is awarded statutory damages in the amount of $4,000.00; 4. Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees in the amount of $1,823.00; 5. Plaintiff is GRANTED an injunction requiring Defendants to (1) provide a properly configured, located and identified accessible parking stall with an adjacent access aisle, and (2) provide and maintain proper clear width of the route of travel from the designated accessible parking to the entrance of the subject facility; 6. Plaintiff is awarded $797.43 for costs; and 7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case and mail copies of this order on Defendants Maria Martinez a/k/a Maria Lourdes Martinez Vasquez d/b/a Accesorios Martinez and TBS Properties, Inc. oe ~_-SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE