Weiss v. Espresso Roma Corporation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-00112
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Weiss v. Espresso Roma, Judge Gilliam granted Weiss’s contempt motion and ordered Espresso Roma and counsel to explain noncompliance with a settlement order.
Hazel Weiss, Espresso Roma Corporation, and Espresso Roma’s counsel.
What happened
In Weiss v. Espresso Roma Corporation, Hazel Weiss alleged that she encountered disability discrimination while visiting a Subway restaurant with her service dog. The parties settled, and Espresso Roma agreed to adopt an Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant service-dog policy, train public-facing staff, and pay Weiss $12,500.
The court had ordered Espresso Roma to comply with the settlement. Weiss later asked the court to hold the company in civil contempt, saying it had not performed any of its obligations and had not responded to her lawyer. Espresso Roma did not respond to the contempt motion.
The court granted Weiss’s motion and ordered Espresso Roma and its counsel to appear by telephone and explain why the company should not be held in contempt and sanctioned. Judge Haywood Gilliam found that Weiss had shown by clear and convincing evidence that Espresso Roma violated the court’s order.
The detailed version
- Weiss v. Espresso Roma Corporation · No. 4:19-cv-00112
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 4, 2020
Background
Hazel Weiss sued Espresso Roma Corporation, alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and related state statutes based on alleged discrimination during her visit to a defendant-owned Subway restaurant with her service dog.
In June 2019, the parties negotiated a settlement agreement. Under that agreement, Espresso Roma was required to adopt a service-dog policy complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act, train its public-facing staff on that policy, and pay Weiss $12,500 within 30 days.
After reports of noncompliance and difficulties communicating with defense counsel, the court reopened the case and later ordered Espresso Roma to comply with the settlement agreement. The court adopted Magistrate Judge Corley’s recommendations and issued that enforcement order on February 3, 2020. Weiss then moved for an order requiring Espresso Roma to explain why it should not be held in civil contempt. Espresso Roma did not respond or object.
Legal standard
Civil contempt involves disobeying a specific and definite court order by failing to take all reasonable steps within the party’s power to comply. The party seeking contempt must prove the violation by clear and convincing evidence. If that showing is made, the burden shifts to the alleged contemnor to explain why compliance was not possible. The opinion also states that a prevailing party may recover attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing and prosecuting contempt proceedings.
Court’s analysis
The court found that its February 3, 2020 order was clear and unambiguous. That order required Espresso Roma to adopt the service-dog policy, train its public-facing staff, and pay Weiss $12,500. The court found that Espresso Roma had failed to comply with those requirements and had made no effort to communicate with or respond to Weiss’s counsel. The court therefore found that Weiss had sufficiently shown cause for holding Espresso Roma in civil contempt.
Disposition
The court GRANTED Weiss’s motion. It ordered Espresso Roma and its counsel to appear by telephone on September 17, 2020, to show cause why Espresso Roma should not be held in contempt and sanctioned for failing to comply with the February 3, 2020 order and the settlement agreement. The order scheduled that show-cause proceeding; the opinion does not state that the court imposed a contempt sanction at that time.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.