Johnson v. Yuam

Background

Scott Johnson sued Charles Yuam and Lily Yuam, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. According to the complaint, Johnson uses a wheelchair and visited Wig & Hair Piece Outlet in September 2020. He alleged that the defendants failed to provide wheelchair-accessible parking and other access features. He sought injunctive relief, statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The defendants did not answer the complaint or otherwise appear. At Johnson’s request, the clerk entered defaults against them on July 12, 2021. Johnson then moved for default judgment. The court considered the motion without oral argument.

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 documents indicated that substitute service was made on January 31, 2021, by leaving the summons and complaint with Kim Yuam, described as the defendants’ adult daughter.

The court found that the proofs of service were unclear and contradictory about where substitute service occurred. Their front pages identified 128 Beverly Street in Mountain View, while attached declarations stated that service occurred at a home on Toledo Avenue in Santa Clara. Johnson also did not cite evidence showing that the defendants lived at either address when service was made. In addition, evidence indicated that a resident of the Mountain View address had told the process server that Charles and Lily Yuam did not live there or receive mail there.

The court also noted that Johnson served the default-judgment motion by mailing it to the Mountain View address, despite the evidence 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 remaining factors governing default judgment, including the merits of the claims, the sufficiency of the complaint, and the amount at stake.

Judge Susan Van Keulen denied Johnson’s motion for default judgment. The court ordered Johnson to re-serve the summons and complaint on each defendant by November 23, 2021 and file new proofs of service. If he did so, the defendants’ time to respond would run from the new service date.