Sepulveda v. Sharhan
- Donna Ryu
- 4:20-cv-00750
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Sepulveda v. Sharhan, Judge Chesney granted Sharhan relief from default and denied Sepulveda’s default-judgment motion as moot.
Ahmed A. Sharhan may defend the lawsuit because the entry of default was set aside, while Richard Sepulveda’s motion for default judgment was denied as moot.
What happened
In Richard Sepulveda v. Ahmed A. Sharhan, Sepulveda brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and related state laws, alleging that Sharhan’s business lacked accessible features. Sharhan did not initially respond, and the clerk entered default against him.
Sharhan asked the court to set aside the default. He said he had been outside the country and had not learned about the lawsuit until his son received Sepulveda’s motion for default judgment. He also presented proposed defenses, including challenges to Sepulveda’s use of the restrooms and to whether the alleged barriers were covered by the disability-access law.
The court granted Sharhan’s motion for relief from default and ordered him to respond to the complaint within 14 days. Because the default was set aside, the court denied Sepulveda’s motion for default judgment as moot. Judge Maxine M. Chesney signed the order.
The detailed version
- Sepulveda v. Sharhan · No. 4:20-cv-00750
- Donna Ryu
- Aug. 17, 2020
Background
Richard Sepulveda sued Ahmed A. Sharhan under the Americans with Disabilities Act and related state laws. Sepulveda alleged that Sharhan owned and operated Evergreen Market, where the restroom was not accessible to people using walkers and the entrance door lacked the international symbol of accessibility.
According to the proof of service, a process server left the summons and complaint at the market with Bashin Sharhan, identified as an employee, and then mailed copies to Sharhan at the business address. After Sharhan failed to respond or otherwise appear, the clerk entered default on May 21, 2020. Sepulveda later moved for default judgment.
Motion to Set Aside Default
Sharhan moved for relief under California Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5. The court construed that request as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) to set aside the clerk’s entry of default. Rule 55(c) permits a court to set aside an entry of default for good cause. The court considered whether setting aside the default would prejudice Sepulveda, whether Sharhan had a potentially valid defense, and whether Sharhan’s conduct caused the default.
The court found no identified prejudice to Sepulveda beyond a possible delay in resolving the case. It also found that Sharhan had presented a sufficient potential defense at this stage. Sharhan’s proposed answer included allegations that Sepulveda visited employee-only bathrooms without permission and that the alleged barriers involved facilities built before January 26, 1993, rather than later alterations covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The court further found that Sharhan’s conduct was not culpable. Sharhan stated that he had lived outside the country since October 2019 and had not seen or learned about the summons and complaint until his son received a copy of the motion for default judgment in July 2020. The court also found that Sharhan’s motion was timely.
Ruling
Because all three factors favored relief, the court granted Sharhan’s motion to set aside the entry of default. The court directed Sharhan to file a response to the complaint within 14 days of the order. The court denied as moot Sepulveda’s motion for default judgment. The order addressed the default and did not decide the underlying disability-access claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.