Johnson v. Gennaro's Limited Liability Company
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:21-cv-08102
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Johnson v. Gennaro’s, Judge Van Keulen granted, conditionally granted, terminated as moot, and terminated without prejudice several pending motions and stipulations.
Scott Johnson, Gennaro’s Limited Liability Company, Ganeshkrupa 86 Corporation, and the attorneys involved in representing the defendants. Gennaro’s had to obtain new counsel, and the parties had to clarify or refile the proposed stipulations.
What happened
In Johnson v. Gennaro’s Limited Liability Company, Scott Johnson sued Gennaro’s Limited Liability Company and Ganeshkrupa 86 Corporation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court considered motions about defense counsel, a proposed consent decree, a site inspection, and a motion challenging the pleadings.
The court approved new counsel for Ganeshkrupa and allowed its former counsel to withdraw. It conditionally allowed the same former counsel to withdraw from representing Gennaro’s, requiring the firm to forward papers until Gennaro’s obtains new counsel or the court orders otherwise. The court also terminated the original withdrawal motion as moot and terminated the proposed consent decree and site-inspection stipulation without prejudice because the filings did not clearly identify which defendants agreed to them.
Judge Susan Van Keulen did not decide the motion challenging the pleadings. She ordered defendants to file an amended motion by April 4, 2022, addressing developments in a related case; otherwise, that motion would be terminated or denied. The parties were also given deadlines to clarify the proposed stipulations and address Johnson’s claims against Gennaro’s if necessary.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Gennaro's Limited Liability Company · No. 5:21-cv-08102
- Susan Van Keulen
- Mar. 9, 2022
Background
Scott Johnson brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act against Gennaro’s Limited Liability Company and Ganeshkrupa 86 Corporation. The opinion states that Gennaro’s is the property owner and landlord, and Ganeshkrupa is the tenant of the property at issue. The court considered several pending motions and stipulations without oral argument.
Attorney withdrawal and substitution
The court granted Richard M. Williams of Gray Duffy, LLP’s motion to substitute as counsel of record for Ganeshkrupa, replacing Stephan A. Barber. The court also granted Barber and JRG Attorneys at Law’s amended motion to withdraw from representing Ganeshkrupa. Counsel appearing for Ganeshkrupa were ordered to file notices of appearance by March 16, 2022.
The court conditionally granted Barber and JRG Attorneys at Law’s amended motion to withdraw from representing Gennaro’s. The conditions included:
- Barber and JRG Attorneys at Law had to continue accepting service of papers for forwarding to Gennaro’s until Gennaro’s obtained substitute counsel or the court ordered otherwise. - Gennaro’s, as a corporation, could not represent itself or appear through its corporate officers; it had to retain a lawyer admitted to practice before the court. - Gennaro’s was warned that failing to obtain counsel could lead to its pleadings being stricken or to entry of default. - By March 16, 2022, former counsel had to serve Gennaro’s with the order and file proof of service, specifically advising it that it could not represent itself in federal court and that failure to obtain counsel could result in default judgment. - Gennaro’s had to obtain new counsel, who had to file a notice of substitution. If it did not obtain counsel by March 25, 2022, Barber had to file a declaration identifying Gennaro’s last known address and certifying compliance with the order.
The court terminated as moot Barber and JRG Attorneys at Law’s original motion to withdraw because the amended motion addressed the issue.
Proposed consent decree and site inspection
The court terminated without prejudice the proposed consent decree concerning Johnson’s requested injunction and the stipulation to forego a joint site inspection. The filings referred to both defendants or all parties but were signed only on behalf of a single unidentified defendant. The parties were ordered to refile the documents by March 16, 2022, clarifying which defendant or defendants were parties to and covered by the proposed relief. If Gennaro’s was not covered, Johnson had to file a status report about his claims against Gennaro’s by the same date.
Motion for judgment on the pleadings
The defendants had filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the allegations were essentially identical to those in an earlier-filed action involving the same property. The court did not decide that motion. Instead, it ordered that, if defendants intended to pursue it, they had to file an amended motion by April 4, 2022, addressing recent developments, including the denial of defendants’ request to consolidate the related action with this case. The court stated that failure to meet that deadline would result in termination or denial of the motion.
Classification and effect
This is a procedural order addressing attorney representation, unclear stipulations, and the schedule for a pending motion. It did not decide the merits of Johnson’s ADA or Unruh Act claims, and it did not rule on the motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.