Sepulveda v. Perez
- Edward Chen
- 3:23-cv-03897
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Sepulveda v. Perez, Judge Chen ordered supplemental evidence on standing and lease control before deciding Sepulveda’s default-judgment motion on a disability-access claim.
Richard Sepulveda and the defendants in the remaining Americans with Disabilities Act claim. The order requires Sepulveda to provide additional evidence and briefing before the court decides his motion for default judgment.
What happened
In Sepulveda v. Perez, Richard Sepulveda asked for a default judgment on his remaining claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which concerns access barriers at a restaurant in Oakland.
The court questioned whether Sepulveda still had a sufficient connection to the restaurant because he appeared to have moved from Oakland to Manteca. It also requested information about which defendants controlled the restaurant and parking lot under the lease and state law.
Judge Edward Chen ordered Sepulveda to submit a sworn declaration and supplemental briefing or evidence within a week, and to serve the order on the defendants. The order did not decide the default-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Sepulveda v. Perez · No. 3:23-cv-03897
- Edward Chen
- Oct. 4, 2024
Background
The court reviewed Richard Sepulveda’s motion for default judgment on his remaining claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sepulveda alleged that he visited the restaurant at issue in Oakland in June and July 2023 and encountered access barriers. He also alleged that he planned to return after the restaurant became accessible, relying in part on his allegation that he lived in Oakland and regularly traveled there.
The court stated that the motion now made it appear that Sepulveda no longer lived in Oakland. His counsel submitted a declaration stating that Sepulveda lived in Manteca, California, about 64 miles away, and regularly returned to Oakland to visit friends and attend medical appointments. The court found that counsel’s declaration was not enough and required a declaration from Sepulveda himself.
Issues for supplemental evidence
The court directed Sepulveda to file a declaration under penalty of perjury addressing when he moved to Manteca, how often he had visited Oakland since moving, the reasons for those visits, and his reasonable expectations and reasons for visiting Oakland in the future. The court stated that confidential portions, such as information about medical appointments, could be submitted under seal if Sepulveda requested it.
The court also addressed the requested injunction. Sepulveda asked for injunctive relief to the extent each defendant had the legal right to provide it under the lease and state law, or to the extent a tenant or landlord controlled the relevant property. The court discussed the principle that a landlord cannot contract away its responsibilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, while a tenant may be responsible only for the part of the property it leased and controlled.
The supplied opinion text then becomes incomplete while discussing whether any defendant’s control over the restaurant extended to the parking lot and whether Sepulveda had the burden to show control over that area.
Order
Judge Edward Chen ordered Sepulveda to provide supplemental briefing and/or evidence within a week of the order’s date and to serve the order immediately on the defendants. The order did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment. It also required Sepulveda to file proof of service.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.