Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-01627/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-01627-2/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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

HARVEST INVESTMENT 

MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No.18-cv-01627-VKD 

ORDER RE SANCTIONS AND CASE 

SCHEDULE

Plaintiff Scott Johnson and his counsel personally appeared for a show cause hearing in 

this action on March 26, 2019. Dkt. No. 23. Having considered Mr. Johnson’s response to the 

Court’s most recent Order to Show Cause and his presentation at the show cause hearing, the 

Court sanctions Mr. Johnson and his counsel as set forth below. The Court sets a further case 

management schedule in lieu of dismissing the action.

I. BACKGROUND

Mr. Johnson filed the present action on March 15, 2018. Dkt. No. 1. Pursuant to the initial 

case management scheduling order and General Order 56, his last day to complete service on 

defendant Harvest Investment Management, LLC (“Harvest”) or file a motion for administrative 

relief from the service deadline was May 14, 2018; the last day to conduct a joint site inspection 

was June 28, 2018; and the last day to file a notice of need for mediation was August 9, 2018. 

Dkt. No. 5. Mr. Johnson did not serve Harvest or file a motion for administrative relief from the 

May 14 service deadline. The parties did not conduct a joint site inspection or seek relief from the 

June 28 deadline. Mr. Johnson did not file a notice of need for mediation or seek relief from the 

August 9 deadline. 

Case 5:18-cv-01627-VKD Document 25 Filed 03/28/19 Page 1 of 5
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

On August 10, 2018, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the action should not 

be dismissed for failure to serve the summons and complaint within 90 days after the filing of the 

complaint pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 9. 

On August 16, 2018, Mr. Johnson filed a response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. 

Dkt. No. 11. That response described Mr. Johnson’s unsuccessful efforts to locate and serve 

Harvest from March 21, 2018 to about mid-May 2018, but suggested that Mr. Johnson made no 

efforts thereafter to serve the complaint between approximately mid-May and August 16, 2018. 

Dkt. Nos. 11-1, 11-3. Mr. Johnson did not explain this delay or why he failed to seek relief from 

the Court. Instead, Mr. Johnson requested an extension of the service deadline to September 30, 

2018. Dkt. No. 11 ¶ 11. On August 17, 2018, the Court granted that request and ordered Mr. 

Johnson to serve Harvest by September 30, 2018. Dkt. No. 12. The Court reset the June 28, 2018 

deadline for the joint site inspection to November 28, 2018, with all other General Order 56 

deadlines adjusted accordingly. Id.

On September 21, 2018, the parties filed a stipulated request to extend the deadline for 

Harvest to respond to the complaint. Dkt. No. 16. The parties also requested a new scheduling 

order, noting that the deadline for the joint site inspection had already passed. The Court denied 

the request for a new scheduling order, as that request demonstrated that the parties had not 

bothered to read the Court’s August 17, 2018 order. Dkt. No. 17.

Pursuant to the Court’s August 17, 2018 order, Mr. Johnson’s last day to file a notice of 

need for mediation was January 9, 2019. Dkt. No. 12; see also Dkt. No. 5. He again failed to file 

a notice of need for mediation or seek relief from that deadline.

Accordingly, on March 18, 2019, the Court issued a second Order to Show Cause why the 

action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and why Mr. Johnson 

and/or his counsel should not be sanctioned for failure to comply with the Court’s prior orders. 

Dkt. No. 21. At the show cause hearing on March 26, 2019, Mr. Johnson acknowledged that he 

had failed to comply with the deadlines set by the Court. He offered no reasonable explanation for 

this failure to comply or his failure to timely seek relief from those deadlines. Mr. Johnson’s 

counsel stated that the fault was entirely counsel’s and represented that his office would take 

Case 5:18-cv-01627-VKD Document 25 Filed 03/28/19 Page 2 of 5
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

corrective action to properly track and comply with future court-ordered deadlines.

II. DISCUSSION

Mr. Johnson is the most frequent litigant before this Court. He is also the litigant who 

most frequently fails to comply with this Court’s orders. This case is not an exception, but rather 

is representative of Mr. Johnson’s repeated disregard of court-ordered deadlines.

The purpose of General Order 56 is to provide efficient and cost-effective procedures for 

parties to attempt to resolve disputes arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 

Mr. Johnson’s failure to comply with those procedures threatens to undermine the important civil 

rights he claims he is vindicating when he files scores of ADA claims every year in this District.

The Court will not tolerate Mr. Johnson’s repeated non-compliance.

A. Sanctions

The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the 

orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–33 

(1962). That authority includes “the ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which 

abuses the judicial process.” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178, 1186 

(2017) (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1927

(authorizing sanctions against counsel for multiplying proceedings in a case unreasonably and 

vexatiously). 

As a result of Mr. Johnson’s repeated failures to comply with the Court’s orders, this case 

is still not ready for mediation or further case management proceedings more than a year after it 

was filed. Mr. Johnson points out that he has had difficulty obtaining Harvest’s cooperation in 

complying with the deadlines set by General Order 56. However, he acknowledged that the 

remedy for any such lack of compliance is to seek relief from the Court, rather than disregard the 

deadlines entirely. The unnecessary delay and burden on the Court occasioned by Mr. Johnson’s 

lack of compliance with court-ordered deadlines, coupled with his failure to identify any good 

cause that would excuse this lack of compliance, warrant sanctions.

Mr. Johnson’s counsel suggested that the appropriate sanction would be to deny Mr. 

Johnson and his counsel a recovery of any attorneys’ fees for work done up to the date of the 

Case 5:18-cv-01627-VKD Document 25 Filed 03/28/19 Page 3 of 5
4

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

March 26, 2019 show cause hearing. That suggestion presupposes that Mr. Johnson will 

ultimately prevail on the merits. The Court declines to adopt that assumption. However, the 

Court will bear that suggestion in mind if and when the issue of Mr. Johnson’s attorneys’ fees is 

properly before it.

In view of Mr. Johnson’s repeated disregard for the Court’s orders without good cause, the 

Court sanctions Mr. Johnson and his counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $500.00. 

Payment shall be remitted to the Court with 14 days of this ruling. Mr. Johnson and his counsel

shall file a declaration attaching proof of payment no later than April 11, 2019. The Court will 

not dismiss the action at this time. 

B. Case Schedule

The Court believes the interests of justice are best served by permitting the parties to 

continue to litigate their claims and defenses in this case. Accordingly, the Court sets the 

following deadlines:

1. Joint Site Inspection: The joint site inspection is a mutual obligation. Neither party 

may avoid conducting the inspection without leave of the Court. The parties will 

conduct a joint site inspection by no later than April 12, 2019. Mr. Johnson must

provide Harvest with five dates between the date of this order and April 12, 2019 on 

which he is prepared to conduct the joint site inspection. Harvest must select one of 

those five dates, and the parties shall conduct the joint site inspection on the selected

date. Mr. Johnson will file with the Court a declaration confirming that the parties 

have conducted the joint site inspection and stating the date on which it was conducted.

2. Notice of Need for Mediation: If the case is not settled, Mr. Johnson must file a notice 

of need for mediation no later than three weeks following the date of the joint site 

inspection. 

III. CONCLUSION

The parties are advised that failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions, 

including dismissal of the action and/or an adverse judgment against the offending party.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 5:18-cv-01627-VKD Document 25 Filed 03/28/19 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Dated: March 28, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-01627-VKD Document 25 Filed 03/28/19 Page 5 of 5