Love v. Hassan
- James Donato
- 3:19-cv-01871
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Love v. Hassan, Judge Kim denied Love’s default-judgment motion without prejudice because the allegations and service efforts required correction.
Samuel Love’s request for default judgment was denied without prejudice; Mogeeb M. Hassan and Eustacio Hernandez were not subjected to a default judgment by this order.
What happened
In Love v. Hassan, Samuel Love asked for default judgment against Mogeeb M. Hassan and Eustacio Hernandez. The court had concerns about Love’s allegations concerning who owned the property and business and who was responsible for the alleged access violations.
The court also had concerns about service on Hernandez. It allowed Love to amend the complaint to clarify the defendants’ ownership and responsibilities, remove unknown defendants unless identified, and properly serve both defendants. The court also questioned Love’s request for $4,000 from each defendant for one incident and said he would need state-law authority to support that request.
Judge Sallie Kim denied the motion for default judgment without prejudice. The order allowed Love to file another motion if he amended the complaint, properly served the defendants, and they defaulted again.
The detailed version
- Love v. Hassan · No. 3:19-cv-01871
- James Donato
- Jan. 6, 2020
Background
Samuel Love moved for default judgment against Mogeeb M. Hassan and Eustacio Hernandez. Love alleged that Hassan owned real property at 2131 MacDonald Avenue in Richmond, California, and that Hernandez owned the business located there. But Love also alleged that he did not know the defendants’ true names, business capacities, ownership connections to the property and business, or their respective responsibilities for the alleged access violations.
Court’s analysis
The court said these conflicting allegations prevented it from granting default judgment. It gave Love leave to amend the complaint to clarify whether Hassan owned the property and Hernandez owned the business. The court instructed Love to omit the Doe defendants unless he knew their identities and intended to proceed against them.
The court also expressed concern about the efforts to serve Hernandez. If Love filed an amended complaint, he had to formally serve it on both defendants. If he attempted service on Hernandez at the business address, the attempts should occur during business hours. If personal service remained unsuccessful after repeated attempts, substitute service would be accepted only if the person served was identified by name or title and by that person’s relationship to Hernandez.
The court separately addressed Love’s damages request. Love sought $4,000 from each defendant for a single incident and argued that both defendants should be jointly and separately responsible for the full $8,000. The court said the cited decision, Lentini v. California Center for the Arts, Escondido, did not support receiving more than the statutory amount for one violation. If Love continued to seek $4,000 from each defendant, he had to provide state-law authority showing that the recovery was permitted.
Disposition
The court denied Love’s motion for default judgment without prejudice. It set January 27, 2020, as the deadline for any amended complaint. The order stated that if Love amended the complaint, properly served the defendants, and they defaulted again, the order was without prejudice to filing another motion for default judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.