Johnson v. Bozorghadad et al
Filing
41
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 5/28/2020. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 5/28/2020. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2020)
Case 4:17-cv-06536-HSG Document 41 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
SCOTT JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
8
ALI BOZORGHADAD, et al.,
Defendants.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
v.
9
10
Case No. 17-cv-06536-HSG
12
13
Plaintiff Scott Johnson filed this action on November 10, 2017, against Defendants Ali
14
Bozorghadad, Parisa Bozorghadad, and Bay Area Auto Care, Inc. for violations of the Americans
15
with Disabilities Act and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. See Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff
16
contends that the individual Defendants owned the real property located at 1198 El Camino Real,
17
Sunnyvale, California, and Defendant Bay Area Auto Care owned the Alliance Gas business
18
located at the same address. See id. at ¶¶ 2–11. After almost two years, Plaintiff moved for
19
default judgment as to Defendants. See Dkt. No. 24. This Court adopted Magistrate Judge Susan
20
Van Keulen’s report and recommendation denying the motion due to improper service of process.
21
See Dkt. No. 30. The Court then held a telephonic case management conference during which the
22
Court directed Plaintiff to effectuate proper service on all Defendants by April 24, 2020. See Dkt.
23
No. 34.
24
On April 24, Plaintiff filed three proofs of service purporting to serve Defendants. See
25
Dkt. Nos. 38–40. As of the date of this order, Defendants have not appeared in this action. And in
26
reviewing the proofs of service, the Court remains concerned that Defendants have not been
27
properly served. The proofs are virtually identical: All three Defendants appear to have been
28
served via substituted service on April 23, 2020, at 700 S. Bernardo Avenue, Suite 103, in
Case 4:17-cv-06536-HSG Document 41 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 2
1
Sunnyvale, California. Id. From the accompanying documentation, this appears to be the address
2
for a gas station called “Hadad Enterprise, Inc.,” an entity that is not a party in this action. Id.
3
From a printout from the California Secretary of State website that Plaintiff provided, Defendant
4
Ali Bozorghadad appears listed as the agent for service of process for Hadad Enterprise, Inc. But
5
in email correspondence from the process server, she explained that “this is a bad address” and
6
asked for a different address. Id. The process server also noted that she spoke to someone at the
7
business on April 3 “who said he does not know the defendant,” and another person on April 15
8
who “said the defendant is not here.” Id. Yet nevertheless, on April 23, for all three Defendants
9
the process server “serv[ed] personally Jane Doe who identified herself as person in charge.
Middle Eastern female, 40 yrs. Old, 5’6”, 130 lbs, black hair.” See id. The Court understands that
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Plaintiff may have had some difficulty serving Defendants in this action. Nevertheless, the Court
12
remains concerned about this vague identification of the purported person in charge at a business
13
that is not a party to this action.
14
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), a plaintiff must serve each defendant with a
15
summons and complaint within ninety days of filing the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). At
16
this point, Plaintiff has had ample time to properly serve Defendants—over two years—but has
17
failed to do so. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why the case
18
should not be dismissed for failure to serve Defendants as required by Rule 4(m). Plaintiff is
19
directed to file his response, of two pages or less, by May 28, 2020.
20
21
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/26/2020
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?