Macias v. Fasail

Background

Lena Macias sued Gapir Fasail, Pamela Chau, and Somora, Inc., alleging that architectural barriers at the A Bite of Wyoming restaurant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and several California statutes. The clerk entered defaults against all three defendants after none filed an answer or another response. Macias then moved for default judgment, which is a judgment entered when a defendant does not respond to a lawsuit. Somora opposed the motion and challenged whether it had been properly served.

Macias’s papers stated that Fasail and Chau were served by leaving the lawsuit papers with a person in charge at Burrito Express in Oakland and mailing copies to that address. But the record did not show that Burrito Express was either defendant’s usual home, workplace, or mailing address. The process server also reported only one unsuccessful attempt to serve the defendants personally before using substitute service. The court concluded that Macias had not shown the reasonable diligence required for substitute service on individuals.

Macias stated that Somora was served through Ignascio Camarena, identified as Somora’s service agent, by leaving the papers with another person at an address in San Jose. But the address differed from the address listed for Camarena in California Secretary of State records, and the business name at the service location also differed from the business name in those records. The court found that Macias had not shown that service on Somora was adequate.

Court’s Analysis

Before considering whether default judgment is appropriate, a court must determine whether the defendant was properly served and whether the court has jurisdiction over the case and defendant. Because the record did not establish adequate service on any defendant, the court did not analyze the factors normally used to decide whether to enter default judgment, including the strength of the claims, possible prejudice, the amount at stake, and whether the defendants’ failure to respond was excusable.

The court also stated that, even if Fasail and Chau had been properly served, default judgment should not be entered against them before the claims against all defendants had been adjudicated because Macias alleged that the defendants were jointly responsible.

Disposition

The court ordered the clerk to reassign the case to a district judge because only Macias had consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction. Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen recommended that the district judge deny Macias’s motion for default judgment against Gapir Fasail, Pamela Chau, and Somora, Inc. The recommendation was not a ruling on whether the alleged restaurant barriers violated the Americans with Disabilities Act or California law. The opinion stated that any party could file objections within fourteen days.