Calderon

Calderon v. Koutsoukos CA2/7

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 14, 2021B304126California3,342 words

Opinion

Opinion

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Michael Koutsoukos appeals an order denying a motion to vacate a default and default judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) (section 473(b)).1 He and codefendant Eleni Koutsoukos (his wife) filed the motion over 20 months after entry of default and seven months after notice of an order amending the default judgment nunc pro tunc.2 We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Parties and the Complaint Luis Calderon is a functionally blind individual who wanted to patronize a Starbucks store. The Starbucks is on property owned by Michael and Eleni. The Koutsoukoses are Starbucks’s landlords, and their lease contains an indemnification agreement. Calderon sued the Koutsoukoses for alleged violations of the Unruh Act and the California Disabled Persons Act because the “accessible route on the [p]roperty leading to and from [Starbucks] did not have detectable warnings” as required by California law. Without detectable warnings, there was an “‘unnecessary risk to [him] of potentially sever[e] injuries.’” On August 10, 2017, Calderon served the complaint and summons on the Koutsoukoses. Eleni notified Starbucks of the lawsuit…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.