Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04967/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04967-0/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 TO: (1) SERVE DEFENDANT

HAPPY HEN DINER; (2) SEEK ENTRY 

OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT 

CARDOSA PROPERTIES; AND (3) 

SHOW CAUSE WHY COMPLAINT 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

Re: ECF Nos. 4, 10

On November 10, 2014, Plaintiffs filed this action, seeking relief under the Americans 

with Disabilities Act and California equal access and accommodation statutes. ECF No. 1. 

Plaintiffs named as Defendants Cardosa Properties, Inc. and Happy Hen Diner. Id. On November 

12, 2014, the Court issued an initial case management scheduling order, which set certain 

deadlines in the case. See ECF No. 4. That scheduling order set January 9, 2015 as the last date 

for Plaintiffs to complete service on Defendants or to file a motion for administrative relief from 

that deadline. Id. at 1. The order also set an April 6, 2015 deadline for Plaintiffs to file a “Notice 

of Need for Mediation.” Id. With the exception of service on Cardosa Properties on February 10, 

2015, ECF No. 10, none of the foregoing have occurred. Plaintiffs have not served Defendant 

Happy Hen Diner, and have not filed their Notice of Need for Mediation. Also, Defendant 

Cardosa Properties has not answered the complaint.

Accordingly, the Court hereby orders Plaintiffs to serve Defendant Happy Hen Diner

within 14 days of this order. If Plaintiffs have not done so, then they are ORDERED TO SHOW 

CAUSE why their claims against Happy Hen Diner should not be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 The Court also orders Plaintiffs to seek entry of default 

 

1

“Time Limit for Service. If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, 

Case 3:14-cv-04967-JST Document 11 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 2
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

against Cardosa Properties within fourteen days of this order, as that Defendant has not filed a 

timely answer to the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A) (“A defendant must serve an 

answer . . . within 21 days after being served with the summons and complaint . . . .”); Id. 55(a) 

(“Entering a Default. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has 

failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk 

must enter the party’s default.”). Absent a showing of good cause, the Court will dismiss 

Plaintiffs’ claims against this defendant. 

The Court will conduct a hearing on the aforementioned Orders to Show Cause on May 27, 

2014 at 2:00 p.m. If Plaintiff has served Happy Hen Diner2and sought entry of default against 

Cardosa Properties as required by this order, the Order to Show Cause will be vacated. 

The Court will also conduct a Case Management Conference on May 27, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. 

All parties are ordered to appear personally. A Joint Case Management Statement must be filed 

by May 13, 2014. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

 

the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without 

prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the 

plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an 

appropriate period.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

2

It is possible that Happy Hen Diner is merely a dba. But Plaintiffs have named it as a defendant

in their complaint. 

Case 3:14-cv-04967-JST Document 11 Filed 04/15/15 Page 2 of 2