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)

Download PDF
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?