Sepulveda v. OKL Inc.
- Joseph Spero
- 3:20-cv-06426
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Sepulveda v. OKL Inc., Judge Spero struck a nonparty’s motions and jurisdiction declination, while allowing defendants time to respond.
Daven Loomba’s filings were struck. The individual defendants may file their own motion to quash, while OKL Inc. must appear through counsel to file such a motion. The defendants’ response deadline was extended, and the case-management conference was continued.
What happened
In Sepulveda v. OKL Inc., Richard Sepulveda sued OKL Inc. and other defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California law, alleging that a car wash lacked barrier-free access. Daven Loomba filed two motions to quash the summons and complaint, although he was not a named defendant.
The court struck both motions and also struck Loomba’s filing declining magistrate-judge jurisdiction. It ruled that Loomba could not represent the individual defendants or the corporate defendant, which must appear through a lawyer. The individual defendants may file their own motion to quash, and the court gave the defendants 30 days from the order to respond to the complaint.
Judge Joseph C. Spero also continued the case-management conference to January 22, 2021. The order addressed who could file motions and appear for the defendants; it did not decide Sepulveda’s disability-access claims.
The detailed version
- Sepulveda v. OKL Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-06426
- Joseph Spero
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
Richard Sepulveda brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and California state law against OKL Inc., doing business as San Leandro Gas & Car Wash, and Bodh Kunwar and Chitra Kunwar. He alleged that the defendants had failed to provide barrier-free access to the car wash. The order does not decide whether those allegations are valid.
Daven Loomba filed two motions to quash the summons and complaint. A motion to quash asks the court to set aside service or otherwise stop the case from proceeding based on a claimed defect. Loomba was not a named defendant. The proof of service identified him as OKL Inc.’s agent for service of process, but the order does not state his relationship to the other defendants. Although the second motion was signed by the Kunwar defendants, it also bore Loomba’s name.
Rulings
The court struck both motions under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It explained that the right to represent oneself belongs to the individual litigant and does not allow a nonlawyer to represent other people or entities. Because Loomba was not a defendant, he could not represent the Kunwar defendants. OKL Inc., as a corporation, could appear only through a lawyer admitted to practice in the court, so Loomba could not represent it either.
The court also struck Loomba’s declination of magistrate-judge jurisdiction. Because he was not a defendant, and could not act for any named defendant, he could not consent to or decline magistrate-judge jurisdiction on another defendant’s behalf.
Effect of the Order
The order allows the individual defendants to file their own motion to quash, with or without counsel. If OKL Inc. seeks to file such a motion, it must do so through counsel. The court extended the defendants’ deadline to respond to the complaint to 30 days from the date of the order, giving them time to file a motion to quash and giving OKL Inc. time to retain counsel. The court continued the case-management conference from November 13, 2020, to January 22, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.
This was a procedural order about representation, filings, and scheduling. It did not resolve the merits of Sepulveda’s Americans with Disabilities Act or state-law claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.