Whitaker v. Sifflet

N.D. California

Whitaker v. Sifflet

DecidedOctober 19, 2021

Docket3:21-cv-03144

StatusUnknown

This text of Whitaker v. Sifflet (Whitaker v. Sifflet) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Whitaker v. Sifflet, (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN WHITAKER, Case No. 21-cv-03144-VC Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT v. JUDGMENT DAVID SIFFLET, Re: Dkt. No. 13 Defendant.

Brian Whitaker’s motion for default judgment is granted. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant and subject matter jurisdiction over the case; the defendant was properly sued; and Whitaker has standing to sue. The Eifel factors also weigh in favor of default judgment: the complaint adequately alleges violations of the ADA and its implementing regulations, a violation of the ADA automatically constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act, and the defendant was properly served. See Eitel v. McCool, 728 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986); Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f). As to relief, the ADA provides for injunctive relief, and both the ADA and the Unruh Act allow for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12188 (a)(2), 12205; Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a). Whitaker is thus awarded $1,635 in attorney’s fees and $837 in costs. Whitaker is also awarded $4,000 in statutory damages under the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a), for a total monetary judgment of $6,472. The defendant is ordered to provide wheelchair accessible dining surfaces at the “Behind the Bun” restaurant located at 4920 Telegraph Ave., Oakland, California, in compliance with the ADA. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 19, 2021 Koo. we VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN WHITAKER, Case No. 21-cv-03144-VC Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT v. JUDGMENT DAVID SIFFLET, Re: Dkt. No. 13 Defendant.

Brian Whitaker’s motion for default judgment is granted. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant and subject matter jurisdiction over the case; the defendant was properly sued; and Whitaker has standing to sue. The Eifel factors also weigh in favor of default judgment: the complaint adequately alleges violations of the ADA and its implementing regulations, a violation of the ADA automatically constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act, and the defendant was properly served. See Eitel v. McCool, 728 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986); Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f). As to relief, the ADA provides for injunctive relief, and both the ADA and the Unruh Act allow for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12188 (a)(2), 12205; Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a). Whitaker is thus awarded $1,635 in attorney’s fees and $837 in costs. Whitaker is also awarded $4,000 in statutory damages under the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a), for a total monetary judgment of $6,472. The defendant is ordered to provide wheelchair accessible dining surfaces at the “Behind the Bun” restaurant located at 4920 Telegraph Ave., Oakland, California, in compliance with the ADA. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 19, 2021 Koo. we VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Whitaker v. Sifflet, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitaker-v-sifflet-cand-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack