Ramos v. Barron

District Court, E.D. California·Decided March 24, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-00531·Unknown

Opinion

OSCAR RAMOS, Case No. 2:24-cv-0531-DJC-JDP Plaintiff, v. ORDER Defendants. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(19) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment was heard before the assigned Magistrate Judge on August 29, 2024. On January 28, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court... .”). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 28, 2025, are adopted in full; 2. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, ECF No. 11, is GRANTED; 3. Default judgment is entered against defendant Angelica Barron on Plaintiff's ADA and Unruh Act claims; 4. Plaintiff is awarded statutory damages under the Unruh Act in the amount of $4,000; 5. Plaintiff is granted an injunction requiring Defendant to provide an accessible bathroom, dining room, and parking space with proper signage; 6. Plaintiff is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $3,945.50; and 7. Plaintiff is directed to notify the court of whether he intends to dismiss his claims under the California Health and Safety Code and California’s Civil Rights Act within seven days of this order. 8. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further pretrial proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _March 21, 2025 Donel J Cob tto— Hon. Daniel alabretta UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ramos v. Barron, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Ramos v. Barron (Ramos v. Barron) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Donald Milton Orand v. United States
602 F.2d 207 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)
Arthur Robbins, III v. Tom L. Carey
481 F.3d 1143 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)