Johnson v. Monterey & Rancho Plaza
- Beth Freeman
- 5:18-cv-05718
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Johnson v. Monterey & Rancho Plaza, Judge Freeman struck the defendants’ answer and directed default because they repeatedly ignored court orders.
The ruling directly affected Scott Johnson and the defendants by striking the defendants’ answer and directing entry of default. The order did not decide the underlying disability-access claims.
What happened
In Johnson v. Monterey & Rancho Plaza, Scott Johnson alleged that a restaurant was not accessible to him and violated federal disability law and California civil-rights law. The defendants filed an answer but later stopped participating in the case after the parties reached a settlement in principle that was never completed.
The defendants did not oppose Johnson’s motion. The court found that they repeatedly failed to respond to court orders, attend a case-management conference, answer an order requiring an explanation, or respond to monetary sanctions. The court concluded that this conduct showed willfulness, bad faith, or fault and that less severe measures had not worked.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Johnson’s motion to strike the defendants’ answer and directed the clerk to enter default against them. The court ordered Johnson to file a motion for default judgment by August 31, 2020; it did not decide the underlying accessibility claims in this order.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Monterey & Rancho Plaza · No. 5:18-cv-05718
- Beth Freeman
- July 30, 2020
Background
Scott Johnson sued Monterey & Rancho Plaza and Tony Dimaggio’s Stromboli & Pizza, Inc., alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Johnson alleged that, during visits to Tony Dimaggio’s Pizza in May, June, and July 2018, he encountered conditions that were not accessible to him, including a lack of accessible parking, blocked transaction counters, door knobs he could not use, and an improperly configured bathroom.
The defendants filed an answer on October 23, 2018. The parties later informed the court that they had reached a global settlement or settlement in principle, but the settlement was not completed. After that, the defendants did not respond to repeated court orders, did not appear at a case-management conference, did not respond to orders requiring them to explain their nonappearance, and did not respond to an order imposing $250 in sanctions. The defendants also did not oppose Johnson’s motion to strike their answer and enter default.
Legal standard
The court explained that federal district courts have inherent authority to manage their dockets and may impose sanctions, including default or dismissal, when appropriate. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) permits sanctions for failing to appear at a scheduling or other pretrial conference or failing to obey a pretrial order. Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii) through (vii) authorizes sanctions that include striking pleadings.
When a sanction results in default, the violation must be caused by the party’s willfulness, bad faith, or fault. The court considered five factors: the public interest in resolving cases promptly, the court’s need to manage its docket, the risk of prejudice to the opposing party, the public policy favoring decisions on the merits, and whether less severe sanctions were available.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the first three factors favored Johnson because the defendants’ conduct prevented the case from moving forward and prejudiced Johnson’s ability to resolve it. The court also found that the policy favoring decisions on the merits supported striking the answer because a case cannot move toward a merits resolution when a party unreasonably delays it by failing to meet deadlines and discovery obligations.
The court found that the final factor also favored the requested sanction. It had given the defendants several opportunities to participate through a case-management conference, orders requiring an explanation, and monetary sanctions, but the defendants still did not respond. The court concluded that less severe sanctions had not worked and that the defendants’ conduct demonstrated willfulness, bad faith, or fault.
Disposition
The court GRANTED Johnson’s unopposed motion to strike the defendants’ answer and directed the clerk to enter default against the defendants. Johnson was directed to file a motion for default judgment no later than August 31, 2020. This order addressed the defendants’ failure to participate and did not decide whether the alleged accessibility violations occurred or whether they violated the laws identified in the complaint.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.