Johnson v. Sandhu, et al.

Filing 39

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 1/30/15 ORDERING that Defendant's MOTION for Attorney Fees #31 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SCOTT JOHNSON,

12

15

2:13-cv-01783 JAM KJN

Plaintiff,

13
14

No.

v.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

GURLAL SINGH SANDHU;
GURENDERJEET SANDHU; and DOES
1-10,

16

Defendants.

17
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Gurenderjeet

18
19

Sandhu’s (“Defendant”) motion for attorney’s fees and costs (Doc.

20

#31).

21

#35) and Defendant filed a reply (Doc. #36).

22

reasons, Defendant’s motion is DENIED. 1

Plaintiff Scott Johnson opposes Defendant’s motion (Doc.
For the following

23
I.

24

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 28, 2013, Plaintiff filed the complaint (Doc. #1),

25
26
27
28

1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
scheduled for January 28, 2015.
1

1

alleging that the premises of Defendant’s convenience store

2

failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

3

(“ADA”).

4

handicap-accessible parking space (“the Parking Space”) was in

5

violation of a number of ADA requirements.

The thrust of Plaintiff’s complaint was that the sole

6

On October 13, 2013, Defendant’s counsel prepared and

7

propounded a number of requests for admissions (“RFAs”) on

8

Plaintiff.

9

requested that Plaintiff admit that various aspects of the

Cable Dec., Ex. A.

The first eleven of these RFAs

10

Parking Space complied with ADA requirements.

11

No. 3 requests that Plaintiff “[a]dmit that the width of the

12

access aisle of the sole handicap parking space is greater than

13

48 inches.”

14

Plaintiff’s counsel responded to these RFAs, denying each of the

15

first eleven RFAs propounded by Defendant.

16

Cable Dec., Ex. A.

For example, RFA

On December 13, 2013,

Cable Dec., Ex. B.

On November 5, 2014, the Court heard arguments on

17

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. #28).

18

hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged that the Parking Space

19

was – as of November 5, 2014 – compliant with the ADA.

20

Accordingly, the Court concluded that Plaintiff’s ADA claim was

21

moot and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

22

Plaintiff’s state law claims (Doc. #30).

At the

23
24

II.

OPINION

25

A.

Applicable Rules

26

Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”)

27

authorizes a party to “serve on any other party a written request

28

to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of
2

1

any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to . . .

2

facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about

3

either[.]”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36.

4

Relatedly, Rule 37(c)(2) of the FRCP provides that “[i]f a

5

party fails to admit what is requested under Rule 36 and if the

6

requesting party later proves . . . the matter true, the

7

requesting party may move that the party who failed to admit pay

8

the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred in

9

making that proof.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.

Rule 37(c)(2) further

10

provides that the Court “must so order unless: (A) the request

11

was held objectionable under Rule 36(a); (B) the admission sought

12

was of no substantial importance; (C) the party failing to admit

13

had a reasonable ground to believe that it might prevail on the

14

matter; or (D) there was other good reason for the failure to

15

admit.”

16

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.

Finally, Rule 26(e) of the FRCP provides that “[a] party who

17

has . . . responded to an interrogatory, request for production,

18

or request for admission . . . must supplement or correct its

19

disclosure or response . . . in a timely manner if the party

20

learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response

21

is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective

22

information has not otherwise been made known to the other

23

parties during the discovery process or in writing.”

24

Civ. P. 26.

Fed. R.

25

B.

Judicial Notice

26

Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice (Doc.

27

#33) of the complaint, the answer, Plaintiff’s motion for summary

28

judgment, Defendant’s opposition to summary judgment, Plaintiff’s
3

1

reply in support of summary judgment, and the Court’s November

2

17, 2014 order in this case.

3

of the docket in this case, Defendant’s request is unnecessary

4

and DENIED.

As these documents are already part

5

C.

Discussion

6

Defendant’s counsel argues that he is entitled to an award

7

of attorney’s fees under Rule 37(c)(2), because Plaintiff

8

improperly denied his RFAs with regard to the ADA compliance of

9

the Parking Space.

Mot. at 8.

Plaintiff responds that, “[w]hen

10

the plaintiff responded to the discovery . . . on December 13,

11

2013, he had an adequate basis for contending that the violations

12

existed.”

13

continuing duty to supplement his disclosures under Rule 26(e),

14

and he was therefore obligated to update his response to the RFAs

15

in February 2014, when he received Defendant’s Initial

16

Disclosures.

17

Opp. at 1.

Defendant replies that Plaintiff had a

Reply at 2.

Because Plaintiff failed to admit that the Parking Space was

18

ADA-compliant, and Defendant later proved this fact when moving

19

for summary judgment, Rule 37(c)(2) does, arguably, apply.

20

However, Rule 37(c)(2) also provides that a non-admission may be

21

excused if “the party failing to admit had a reasonable ground to

22

believe that it might prevail on the matter[.]”

23

failed to show that, at the time of Plaintiff’s response to the

24

RFAs on December 13, 2013, Plaintiff should have known that the

25

Parking Space was ADA-compliant.

26

investigator inspected the Parking Space and concluded that it

27

did not comply with the ADA.

28

that renovations were made at some after this initial

Defendant has

On July 24, 2013, Plaintiff’s

Opp. at 1.

4

Although it is clear

1

investigation, there is no evidence that these renovations were

2

conducted prior to December 13, 2013.

3

renovating the Parking Space was issued on December 9, 2013, it

4

seems unlikely that the renovations were completed four days

5

later.

6

were completed by December 13, 2013, there is no evidence that

7

Plaintiff knew of these renovations when he responded to the

8

RFAs.

9

Rule 37(c)(2)(C), as he had a “reasonable ground to believe that

10

Potter Dec., Ex. 2.

Regardless, even if the renovations

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s non-admission is excused under

[he] might prevail on this matter[.]”

11

As the Building Permit for

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.

Defendant’s reliance on Rule 26(e) is misplaced.

Reply at

12

2.

13

duty to supplement or correct responses to RFAs, in light of new

14

information.

15

any authority for his position that a failure to comply with Rule

16

26(e) authorizes the Court to award attorney’s fees under Rule

17

37(c)(2).

18

Rule 37(c)(2), which applies to a party’s “failure to admit what

19

is requested under Rule 36[.]”

20

added).

21

of Rule 26(e), Plaintiff’s conduct did not constitute such a

22

violation.

23

response to an RFA “if the party learns that in some material

24

respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect,

25

and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise

26

been made known to the other parties during the discovery

27

process[.]”

28

contends that, by virtue of his own initial disclosures – in

Defendant is correct that Rule 26(e) imposes a continuing

Fed. R. Civ. 26.

However, Defendant fails to cite

Indeed, such a position contradicts the plain text of

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (emphasis

Moreover, even if Rule 37(c)(2) did apply to violations

Rule 26(e) provides that a party must correct its

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (emphasis added).

5

Defendant

1

February 2014 – Plaintiff was on notice that the Parking Space

2

was ADA-compliant.

3

provided by Defendant himself, the updated information was “known

4

to the other parties” and the second condition of Rule 26(e) is

5

not satisfied.

6

Reply at 2.

As these disclosures were

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s failure to admit that the

7

Parking Space was ADA-compliant in response to Defendant’s RFAs

8

does not justify an award of attorney’s fees under Rule 37(c)(2).

9

Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees is DENIED.

10
11
12
13
14
15

III.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES
Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees:
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 30, 2015

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6