Johnson v. Baglietto

SCOTT JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. ALESSANDRO F. BAGLIETTO, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-06206-TSH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

May 21, 2020

REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT WITH REPORT & RECOMMENDATION RE: MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 19

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Scott Johnson brings this case under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., to compel Defendants Alessandro and Nancy Baglietto to provide an accessible path of travel to the store entrance and accessible parking spaces at the Olsen Nolte Saddle Shop. Pending before the Court is Johnson's Motion for Default Judgment. ECF No. 19. Defendants have not opposed the motion or moved to set aside default. The undersigned finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the June 11, 2020 hearing. Civ. L.R. 7-(1)(b). As not all parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the Court requests this case be reassigned to a District Judge for disposition. After carefully reviewing the motion and controlling authorities, the undersigned RECOMMENDS the District Court GRANT the motion for the following reasons.

II. BACKGROUND

Johnson is a quadriplegic who cannot walk and has significant manual dexterity impairments. Compl. ¶1, ECF No. 1; Johnson Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 19-4. He uses a wheelchair for mobility. Id. (both). Johnson drives a specially equipped van and has a disabled persons parking placard issued by the State of California. Compl. ¶ 1; Johnson Decl. ¶ 3. His van deploys a ramp so that he can wheel in and out of his vehicle. Johnson Decl. ¶ 3. Johnson needs the full "van accessible" access aisle in order to safely transfer to and from his van. Id. He avoids using non-marked, non-reserved, non-accessible parking spaces because, in the past, he has parked in regular stalls and found himself trapped outside his vehicle because someone else parked lawfully next to him. Id. ¶ 4.

On October 22, 2018, Johnson went to the Olsen Nolte Saddle Shop, located at 1580 El Camino Real, San Carlos, California, in order to look for some things that he wanted to buy. Compl. ¶ 9; Johnson Decl. ¶ 5. When he got to the shop, he found that the front entrance had two steps and there was no ramp or lift for a wheelchair user. Johnson Decl. ¶ 6. There was also no directional signage indicating an alternative entrance or other way for a wheelchair user to gain access. Id. Johnson drove around the back and found a small parking lot with spaces for approximately six vehicles but no lines delineating stall boundaries. Id. ¶ 7. There were signs specifically identifying this area as parking for customers of Olsen Nolte Saddle Shop. Id. The idea of parking in a non-reserved parking stall with no access aisle gave Johnson great discomfort, so he left to shop elsewhere. Id. ¶ 8.

On April 11, 2019, Johnson was on El Camino Real and would have shopped at the Olsen Nolte Saddle Shop, but he was deterred from doing so because of his knowledge about the barriers that exist there. Id. ¶ 9. Due to the lack of accessible entrance and parking, he is deterred from further attempting to shop at the Olsen Nolte Saddle Shop and will not return until he has been informed that the shop claims compliance with disability access laws. Id. ¶ 10. He is regularly in this geographical area and plans to return to the Olsen Nolte Saddle Shop when it is in compliance - both to make purchases and to assess the shop for compliance with the ADA. Id. ¶ 11.

Johnson filed this case on September 30, 2019. He brings claims under the ADA forfailure to provide accessible paths of travel and an accessible parking space, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182-83, and under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51(f), which provides that a violation of the ADA is a violation of the Unruh Act. On January 3, 2020, personal service was effectuated on Nancy Baglietto at her home at 143 Brookside Drive, Portola Valley, California. ECF No. 11. At the same time, substitute service was effectuated on Alessandro Baglietto by leaving a copy of the process with his wife Nancy at their home, followed up by first-class mail service on January 15, 2020. ECF No. 12. After neither answered the complaint, the Clerk entered their defaults. ECF Nos. 14, 17. Johnson filed the present motion on May 5, 2020.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) permits a court, following default by a defendant, to enter default judgment in a case. "The district court's decision whether to enter default judgment is a discretionary one." Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980).

At the default judgment stage, the factual allegations of the complaint, except those concerning damages, "together with other competent evidence submitted" are deemed admitted by the non-responding parties. Shanghai Automation Instrument Co. v. Kuei, 194 F. Supp. 2d 995, 1000 (N.D. Cal. 2001); see also Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 906 (9th Cir. 2002) ("With respect to the determination of liability and the default judgment itself, the general rule is that well-pled allegations in the complaint regarding liability are deemed true."). "However, a defendant is not held to admit facts that are not well-pleaded or to admit conclusions of law." DIRECTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh, 503 F.3d 847, 854 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation and quotation omitted)). Therefore, "necessary facts not contained in the pleadings, and claims which are legally insufficient, are not established by default." Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1267 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1978)); accord DIRECTV, 503 F.3d at 854. Further, the scope of relief is limited by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c), which states that a "default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings."

In determining whether default judgment is appropriate, the Ninth Circuit has enumerated the following factors for courts to consider:

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff's substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Jurisdiction and Service of Process

In considering whether to enter default judgment, a district court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to the case. In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999). "[T]he district court is not restricted to the face of the pleadings, but may review any evidence, such as affidavits and testimony, to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction." McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988) (considering subject matter jurisdiction on a 12(b)(1) motion).

1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and are presumptively without jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A federal court may dismiss an action on its own motion if it finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fiedler v. Clark, 714 F.2d 77, 78-79 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.").

Here, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction because Johnson has asserted claims under the ADA, a federal statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."). The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over his Unruh Act claim because it arises from the same nucleus of operative facts and out of the same transactions as the ADA claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) ("in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy").

2. Personal Jurisdiction

a. Basis for Personal Jurisdiction

To enter default judgment, the Court must have a basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendants in default. In re Tuli, 172 F.3d at 712. "Without a proper basis for [personal] jurisdiction, or in the absence of proper service of process, the district court has no power to render any judgment against the defendant's person or property unless the defendant has consented to jurisdiction or waived the lack of process." S.E.C. v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2007). Traditional bases for conferring a court with personal jurisdiction include a defendant's consent to jurisdiction, personal service of the defendant within the forum state, or a defendant's citizenship or domicile in the forum state. J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 880 (2011). Absent one of the traditional bases for jurisdiction, the Due Process Clause requires that the defendant have "certain minimum contacts with the forum 'such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Office of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (citations and quotation marks omitted). The party seeking to invoke jurisdiction has the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper. Flynt Distrib. Co. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389, 1392 (9th Cir. 1984). "[M]ere 'bare bones' assertions of minimum contacts with the forum or legal conclusions unsupported by specific...