Johnson v. Chan et al

Filing 60

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 8/25/2020 RECOMMENDING that 54 plaintiff's motion for default judgment against defendant Chauhan should be DENIED without prejudice. Matter REFERRED to Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SCOTT JOHNSON,

12
13
14

No. 2:17-cv-00138-KJM-AC

Plaintiffs,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SIU KEUNG CHAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against

18

defendant Haneshinder Singh Chauhan in this multi-defendant case. ECF No. 54. For the

19

following reasons it is recommended that plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be DENIED

20

without prejudice.

21

I.

22

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed his complaint on January 23, 2017, asserting multiple causes of action

23

against several defendants. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Siu Keung Chan and

24

defendant Rita Ngan Chan own real property through a revocable trust. ECF No. 1 at 2. He

25

further alleges that defendant Haneshinder Singh Chauhan owned a Subway restaurant located at

26

the subject property. Id. at 3. Plaintiff allegedly visited the property and encountered violations

27

of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Id. at 4-11. Plaintiff

28

seeks injunctive relief under both acts, and statutory damages under the Unruh Act. Id. at 11.
1

1

All defendants in this case initially had the same counsel, but counsel was found ineligible

2

to practice law. ECF No. 31. The order regarding counsel’s ineligibility was issued on July 30,

3

2019, and provided 45 days for defendants to obtain new counsel or indicate their wishes to

4

proceed pro se in this case. Id. at 2. Defendants Rita Ngan Chan and Siu Keung Chan obtained

5

new counsel. See ECF No. 53. Noting that defendant Chauhan did not obtain new counsel or

6

appear pro se, the District Judge in this case ordered plaintiff to provide the court with defendant

7

Chauhan’s last known residence and to serve defendant Chauhan a copy of the order finding

8

counsel ineligible. ECF No. 47. On June 2, 2020, upon finding that defendant Chauhan still had

9

not appeared with new counsel or appeared pro se, the District Judge ordered plaintiff to move for

10

default judgment against defendant Chauhan before the Magistrate Judge within 30 days. ECF

11

No. 52. On August 25, 2020, a minute order was issued stating that plaintiff had notified the

12

court of settlement as to the Chan defendants only, and vacating all deadlines and hearings as to

13

those defendants only. ECF No. 59. Dispositional documents as to the Chan defendants are due

14

no later than October 19, 2020.

15
16

II.

THE MOTION

Plaintiff moves for default judgment against defendant Chauhan. ECF No. 54. Plaintiff

17

filed a certificate of service. ECF No. 55. None of the defendants, including defendant Chauhan,

18

responded to the motion.

19
20

III.

ANALYSIS

“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead

21

or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the

22

party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). After default is entered, unless the plaintiff’s claim is for

23

a sum certain, the plaintiff must apply to the court for entry of default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P.

24

55(b)(2). In an action with multiple defendants, entry of default judgment must comply with Fed.

25

R. Civ. P. 54, which states:

26
27
28

When an action presents more than one claim for relief—whether as
a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim—or when
multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final
judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only
if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.
2

1
2
3

Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that
adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of
fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the
claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of
a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and
liabilities.

4
5
6

(emphasis added).
“The leading case on the subject of default judgments in actions involving multiple

7

defendants is Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552 (1872). The Court held in Frow that, where a

8

complaint alleges that defendants are jointly liable and one of them defaults, judgment should not

9

be entered against the defaulting defendant until the matter has been adjudicated with regard to all

10

defendants.” In re First T.D. & Inv., Inc., 253 F.3d 520, 532 (9th Cir. 2001). The Ninth Circuit

11

has “extended the rule beyond jointly liable co-defendants to those that are similarly situated,

12

such that the case against each rests on the same legal theory; it would be incongruous and unfair

13

to allow a plaintiff to prevail against defaulting defendants on a legal theory rejected by a court

14

with regard to an answering defendant in the same action.” Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069,

15

1082–83 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted).

16

In this case, the undersigned finds that default judgment at this stage of the proceedings

17

would not be appropriate because plaintiff failed to seek entry of default from the Clerk of Court

18

before moving for default judgment. This step ensures adequate notice to the allegedly defaulting

19

defendant, and without it, the motion is premature. For this reason, the motion must be denied

20

without prejudice.

21

Further, the undersigned finds that even had a default been entered on the docket, plaintiff

22

has not adequately briefed the issue of damages in this case, where the defendants would be

23

jointly and severally liable, and two thirds of the defendants have settled. California district

24

courts have repeatedly held that where there are multiple defendants in an Unruh action, the

25

defendants are jointly and severally liable for penalties. See Love v. Kim, 2019 WL 8167926, at

26

*1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2019) (“courts generally award only a single $4,000 statutory damage

27

penalty where multiple defendants who own or operate a business are held liable for an ADA

28

violation”); Johnson v. Express Auto Clinic, Inc., 2019 WL 2996431, *8 (N.D. Cal. 2019)
3

1

(entering judgment of “$4,000 in statutory damages” in case where multiple defendants operated

2

a non-compliant gas station); Johnson v. Ramirez Ltd. P’ship, 2019 WL 2315290, *8 (E.D. Cal.

3

2019) (“award[ing] a total of $4,000 in statutory damages, as authorized by the Unruh Civil

4

Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a), jointly and severally against the defendants” where

5

defendants owned non-compliant café); Hopson v. Singh, 2019 WL 4298040, *5 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

6

(same, where multiple defendants owned non-compliant gas station). Because the defendants in

7

this case would be jointly and severally liable, any renewed motion for default judgment must

8

address the distribution of damages between the defaulting and settling defendants.

9

The denial of the present motion should be without prejudice. Plaintiff may request entry

10

of default pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) at any time, and bring a renewed motion for default

11

judgment. The renewed motion should brief the issue of distribution of damages.

12
13
14
15

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against defendant
Chauhan, ECF No. 54, should be DENIED without prejudice.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

16

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21)

17

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

18

objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

19

Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Failure to file objections within the

20

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

21

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

22

DATED: August 25, 2020

23
24
25
26
27
28
4