Trujillo v. Alhumidi, et al., No. 1:2020cv00127 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 21 Findings and Recommendations, Recommending that Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Default Judgment be Granted signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/20/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
Trujillo v. Alhumidi, et al. Doc. 23 Case 1:20-cv-00127-DAD-HBK Document 23 Filed 07/21/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE TRUJILLO, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:20-cv-00127-NONE-HBK Plaintiff, v. YASIR ALHUMIDI, et al. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT BE GRANTED (Doc. Nos. 17, 21) Defendants. 16 17 On January 23, 2020, plaintiff Jose Trujillo filed a complaint against defendants Yasir 18 Alhumidi d/b/a J Street Mini Mart, Juan Carlos d/b/a Jalisco’s Tacos, Madram M. Shuaibi, and 19 Nasser S. Shuaibi (collectively referred to as “Defendants”), pursuant to Title III of the 20 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq; the California Unruh Act, 21 California Civil Code § 51 et seq.; and California Health & Safety Code §§ 19955, 19959. (Doc. 22 No. 1). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 23 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 Defendants did not answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff’s complaint. (See docket). 25 Accordingly, on March 13, 2020 and March 26, 2020, plaintiff requested a clerk’s entry of default 26 against the defendants which were then entered. (Doc. Nos. 9–14.) Thereafter, on July 15, 2020, 27 plaintiff moved for a default judgment. (Doc. No. 17). On June 14, 2021, findings and 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00127-DAD-HBK Document 23 Filed 07/21/21 Page 2 of 2 1 recommendations were issued recommending that plaintiff’s motion be granted. (Doc. No. 63.) 2 Defendants have filed no objections and the time for doing so has passed. (See docket). 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 4 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 5 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, 7 1. 8 The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on June 14, 2021 (Doc. No. 21) are adopted in full; 9 2. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 17) is granted; 10 3. Plaintiff is awarded statutory damages in the amount of $4,000; 11 4. Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs in the amount of 12 13 $3,629.65; 5. Defendants are ordered to rectify all architectural barriers on their property so that 14 it provides accessible parking, sidewalk access and seating within the requirements 15 of the ADA; and 16 6. 17 The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and close this case. 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 20, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.