Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04967/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04967-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IRMA RAMIREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HAPPY HEN DINER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04967-JST 

ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS; 

DISMISSING DEFENDANT HAPPY 

HEN DINER FROM ACTION

Re: ECF Nos. 11, 14

On April 15, 2015, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause in this case directing 

Plaintiffs to serve named Defendant Happy Hen Diner, and to seek entry of default against 

Defendant Cardosa Properties. See ECF No. 11. The Court also ordered Plaintiffs to show cause 

why their claims against Defendant Happy Hen Diner should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 

4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. The Court further cautioned that Plaintiffs’ 

failure to show cause or otherwise comply with the Order would result in a dismissal of Plaintiffs’ 

claims against Happy Hen Diner. Id. Finally, the Court set a hearing on the Order for May 27, 

2015. Id. at 2.

Plaintiffs filed a response to the Order to Show Cause wherein they indicated that Happy 

Hen Diner was not a separate entity defendant, but was instead a d/b/a for Cardosa Properties. See

ECF No. 12 at 1. Plaintiffs also explained that they re-served Cardosa Properties on April 12, 

2015, and that Cardosa Properties’ answer to the complaint was therefore due on May 4, 2015. 

See id. at 2. Plaintiffs asked the Court to continue the Order to Show Cause hearing to give 

Defendants time to hire counsel and answer the complaint. Id.

The Court continued the Order to Show Cause hearing to June 4, 2015. ECF No. 14. The 

Court ordered Plaintiffs to file an administrative motion vacating the Order to Show Cause if 

Cardosa Properties answered the complaint by the May 4, 2015 deadline. Id. at 1. If, however, 

Case 3:14-cv-04967-JST Document 18 Filed 06/11/15 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Cardosa Properties did not answer the complaint, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to seek entry of 

Cardosa Properties’ default by May 19, 2015. See id. at 1-2. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to file 

an administrative motion to vacate the Order to Show Cause hearing in conjunction with their 

motion for entry of default. Id. at 2.

Cardosa Properties did not file an answer to the complaint by the May 4, 2015 deadline. 

Plaintiffs did not file a motion for entry of default against Cardosa Properties, nor did Plaintiffs 

file an administrative motion to vacate the June 4, 2015 Order to Show Cause hearing. 

On June 2, 2015, Cardosa Properties answered the complaint.

On June 4, 2015, the Court held the Order to Show Cause hearing. See ECF No. 17. 

Plaintiffs did not appear at that hearing. See id. Counsel for Cardosa Properties, however, did 

appear, because the hearing remained on calendar. Because Plaintiff’s conduct had forced 

Cardosa Properties’ counsel to make an unnecessary court appearance, the Court inquired as to the 

amount Cardosa Properties would be billed for counsel’s appearance. Counsel stated that his 

hourly rate is $400, and he would bill his client for $1,400, representing three-and-one-half hours 

of time, including travel time. 

Accordingly, the Court how orders as follows:

1. Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court hereby 

dismisses Defendant Happy Hen Diner from this case.

1

 

2. Plaintiffs’ counsel Thomas E. Frankovich is hereby ordered to pay to Defendant 

Cardosa Properties $1,400 for the unnecessary court appearance Mr. Frankovich caused Cardosa’s 

lawyer to make. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) (“[T]he court may issue any just orders . . . if a party or 

its attorney: (A) fails to appear at a scheduling or other pretrial conference; . . . or (C) fails to obey 

a scheduling or other pretrial order.”); Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764-67 

(1980) (explaining that a court has inherent power to impose monetary or other sanctions in order 

to control the conduct of the proceedings, protect the “orderly administration of justice,” and to 

maintain “the authority and dignity of the court.”). This sanction is to be paid personally by Mr. 

 

1

It is not necessary to reach the question of whether the Happy Hen Diner is a corporate entity or 

a dba. Plaintiff has not sought to amend the caption. 

Case 3:14-cv-04967-JST Document 18 Filed 06/11/15 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Frankovich and not by the plaintiffs. This sum must be paid to Cardosa Properties within ten 

days of the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04967-JST Document 18 Filed 06/11/15 Page 3 of 3