Johnson v. Bozorghadad

Background

Scott Johnson brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He alleged that an accessible parking space, the path to an outside restroom, and the entrance-door hardware at the Alliance Gas station violated his rights. The defendants were Ali Bozorghadad, Parisa Bozorghadad, and Bay Area Auto Care, Inc.

The defendants did not appear or respond to the complaint. The clerk entered defaults against Bay Area Auto Care on December 11, 2017, and against Ali and Parisa Bozorghadad on January 22, 2018. Johnson then moved for default judgment against all three defendants.

Service on Bay Area Auto Care

The court found that service on Bay Area Auto Care was proper. Johnson served Ali Bozorghadad as the company’s registered agent for service of process, and the submitted public-record report supported that assertion.

Even so, the court recommended denying default judgment against Bay Area Auto Care at that stage. The complaint appeared to allege that the defendants were jointly liable or similarly situated. Under the rule discussed by the court, judgment ordinarily should not be entered against one defaulting defendant until the matter has been adjudicated as to all defendants.

Service on Ali and Parisa Bozorghadad

The court concluded that Johnson had not shown that substitute service on Ali and Parisa Bozorghadad was proper. California law permits substitute service only after reasonable diligence in attempting personal service and requires leaving the papers at an appropriate location with a person apparently in charge, followed by mailing the papers to that address.

The court identified several inconsistencies and uncertainties:

- Johnson’s motion said Ali was personally served on November 15, 2017, but the cited proof of service showed service on Bay Area Auto Care as a corporation, not service on Ali as an individual. - The proofs of service for Ali and Parisa identified the location as “SUNNYVALE UNION 76,” while the complaint and motion referred to an “Alliance Gas” station. The photographs did not show “76” signage around the time of service. - The pleadings generally identified the address as “1198 El Camino Real,” while the proofs of service specified “1198 W EL CAMINO REAL.” - The records gave different service dates, including December 9, December 15, and December 25, 2017, while Johnson’s motion asserted that Ali was served on November 15, 2017. - The proofs of service identified the person who received the papers only as Amel “Doe,” described as the person in charge.

Because of these issues, the court could not conclude that Ali and Parisa had been properly served.

Ruling and next steps

The court recommended denial of Johnson’s motion for default judgment as to Ali and Parisa because proper service had not been demonstrated. It also recommended denial of the motion as to Bay Area Auto Care until the matter had been adjudicated as to all defendants. Because adequate service had not been shown for all defendants, the court did not consider the other factors governing default judgment.

The court ordered the clerk to reassign the case to a district judge because not all defendants had consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction. Johnson was ordered to promptly serve each defendant with the Report and Recommendation and file proof of service. The parties could file objections within fourteen days. Judge Susan Van Keulen signed the order and recommendation.