Brooke v. Ajesh Hospitality LLC

Background

Theresa Brooke brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, alleging that an architectural barrier at the Hampton Inn & Suites San Jose Airport violated her rights. She named Ajesh Hospitality LLC as the only defendant and contended that Ajesh owned or operated the hotel.

A proof of service stated that Mitesha Kalthia personally received the summons and complaint for Ajesh on April 22, 2020. Ajesh did not answer or otherwise respond, and the clerk entered its default on May 15, 2020. Brooke then moved for default judgment. Her counsel also submitted evidence of two emails sent to a general hotel-related email address, but no response was received.

Court’s analysis

Before entering default judgment, the court had to determine whether Ajesh was properly served. The court explained that service on a corporation generally must be made through an officer, managing director, general agent, or an agent authorized to receive service, or through a method allowed by applicable state law.

The court found that Brooke had not established that Mitesha Kalthia was Ajesh’s authorized service agent. A California Secretary of State filing identified Ajesh’s service agent as Mitesh Kalthia at the same address listed in the proof of service, but the names did not exactly match. The court stated that the possible misspelling might not itself be fatal, but Brooke had submitted no evidence showing that the person served was the authorized agent. Brooke also had not provided evidence establishing that Ajesh was the owner or operator of the hotel. The emails to the general address did not resolve those problems.

Disposition

Judge Susan Van Keulen denied Brooke’s motion for default judgment. Because Brooke had not shown adequate service, the court found it unnecessary to consider the other factors governing default judgment, including the merits of the claims. The court gave Brooke until August 21, 2020, to file a renewed motion supported by additional evidence showing either that the April 22 service was made on Ajesh’s correct agent or that the correct agent had been newly served. Any renewed motion also had to include evidence that Ajesh owned or operated the hotel.