Tavarez-Vargas v. Nouhaus, Inc.

Background

Carmen Tavarez-Vargas filed the complaint on November 24, 2021. The opinion states that Nouhaus, Inc. was served on December 16, 2021, making its answer due January 6, 2022. Nouhaus had not appeared or answered when the court issued this order.

The opinion indicates that the complaint alleges a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal law that addresses disability discrimination, but it does not describe the complaint’s factual allegations in detail.

Court’s orders

The court ordered Tavarez-Vargas, by January 28, 2022, either to file a motion for default judgment against Nouhaus under the court’s local rules or to show why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. A default judgment is a judgment that may be entered when a party fails to defend, but the court explained that entering a default does not automatically establish the plaintiff’s right to judgment. The court may enter default judgment only if the complaint’s allegations, taken as true, establish liability as a matter of law.

The court required Tavarez-Vargas to serve Nouhaus with the motion and supporting papers by January 28 and to file proof of service by February 1. Nouhaus’s opposition was due February 15, and Tavarez-Vargas’s reply was due February 22. The court ordered Nouhaus to appear and explain at a telephone hearing on March 2, 2022, why default judgment should not be entered. If Nouhaus appeared and opposed the motion before that hearing, the hearing would also serve as the initial case-management conference.

The court further ordered Tavarez-Vargas to serve Nouhaus with a copy of the order by overnight courier within one week and to file proof of that service within two business days. If Nouhaus did not appear, the court said Tavarez-Vargas’s counsel should be prepared to discuss service, notice, communications with Nouhaus, the alleged unlawful conduct, and the method for calculating damages.

Potential validity of the claim

The court directed counsel to be prepared to discuss whether the complaint alleges a valid cause of action under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In doing so, it cited decisions addressing whether websites of businesses without public-facing physical retail operations qualify as places of public accommodation under the statute. The court did not decide that issue in this order.

Disposition

The court ordered Tavarez-Vargas to move for default judgment or show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, set related deadlines, and scheduled a show-cause hearing. It did not enter default judgment, dismiss the case, or resolve whether the complaint states a valid claim. The order was issued by Judge John P. Cronan.