Johnson v. Yuam
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:20-cv-08542
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Johnson v. Yuam, Judge Van Keulen denied default judgment because service on defendants was not shown adequate and ordered re-service.
Scott Johnson’s request for default judgment was denied. He was ordered to serve Charles Yuam and Lily Yuam again by November 23, 2021; their time to respond would begin from the new service date. The court did not decide whether the alleged accessibility violations occurred or whether Johnson’s claims had merit.
What happened
Scott Johnson sued Charles Yuam and Lily Yuam, alleging that a business location they owned violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought an order requiring changes, statutory damages, and legal fees and costs.
The court found that the documents showing service were unclear and contradictory about where the defendants were served. The record also did not show that either defendant lived at the addresses used, and the motion for default judgment was mailed to an address where evidence indicated they did not live.
Judge Van Keulen denied Johnson’s motion for default judgment without deciding the other requirements for such a judgment. The court ordered Johnson to serve the summons and complaint again by November 23, 2021, after which the defendants’ time to respond would begin.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Yuam · No. 5:20-cv-08542
- Susan Van Keulen
- Nov. 2, 2021
Background
Scott Johnson sued Charles Yuam and Lily Yuam over alleged accessibility violations at Wig & Hair Piece Outlet, located at 313 Brokaw Road in Santa Clara, California. Johnson alleged that the defendants owned the property and that, during his September 2020 visit, they failed to provide wheelchair-accessible parking. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, seeking injunctive relief, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
The defendants did not answer or otherwise appear. At Johnson’s request, the clerk entered defaults against them on July 12, 2021. Johnson then moved for default judgment. The defendants did not respond to that motion.
Service of Process
Before entering default judgment, the court had to determine whether the defendants were properly served and whether it had jurisdiction over them. Johnson stated that personal service had been completed, but the proofs of service showed that attempts to personally serve each defendant were unsuccessful. The defendants were eventually served by leaving the summons and complaint with Kim Yuam, described as their adult daughter.
The court found the proofs of service contradictory about where substitute service occurred. The first page identified 128 Beverly Street in Mountain View, while attached declarations stated that service occurred at “Home -2011 Toledo Avenue Santa Clara, CA.” Johnson also did not cite evidence showing that the defendants lived at either address when service was made. In addition, the record included information that a resident of the Mountain View address had told the process server that Charles and Lily Yuam were unknown and did not live or receive mail there.
The court also noted that Johnson mailed the default-judgment motion to the Mountain View address, even though the record indicated that the defendants did not live there.
Disposition
The court concluded that Johnson had not shown that service on the defendants was proper. Because of that conclusion, it did not consider the other factors governing default judgment, including the merits of Johnson’s claims. The court denied Johnson’s motion for default judgment and ordered him to re-serve the summons and complaint on each defendant and file new proofs of service by November 23, 2021. The defendants’ time to respond would run from the new service date.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.