Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01725/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01725-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

18-CV-1725-WQH-WVG

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY NAVARRO,

Plaintiff,

v.

GASLAMP TAVERN LLC dba 

GASLAMP TAVERN, et al,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-CV-1725-WQH-WVG

RECOMMENDATION ON JOINT 

MOTION TO DISMISS WITH 

PREJUDICE

On May 24, 2019, this Court convened a settlement disposition hearing pursuant to 

its April 30, 2019 Order (Doc. No. 26), after a dispute arose over the legitimacy of the 

settlement agreement at issue. Counsel for Anthony Navarro (“Plaintiff”) and counsel for 

Gaslamp Tavern, LLC (“Defendant”) appeared, but Plaintiff did not. In relevant part, the 

Court’s Order stated, “Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel ARE BOTH ORDERED to appear 

in person.” As a result of Plaintiff’s violation of the Court’s Order, the Court reset the 

settlement disposition hearing to June 18, 2019 in its May 24, 2019 Order (Doc. No. 29)

and required Plaintiff’s personal appearance at the hearing.

At the June 18, 2019 hearing, Plaintiff again failed to appear. During the hearing, 

Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court that Plaintiff was incarcerated at the time, and thus 

could not be personally present for the proceeding. The Court then issued its June 19, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01725-WQH-WVG Document 36 Filed 08/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-CV-1725-WQH-WVG

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

Order (Doc. No. 31), requiring Plaintiff to submit a signed declaration testifying to his 

personal knowledge of and assent to the proffered settlement agreement and that he 

personally signed the settlement agreement at issue. In doing so, the Court set a subsequent 

settlement hearing date for July 17, 2019. 

Plaintiff did not file any declaration pursuant to the Court’s Order. However, 

Plaintiff’s counsel filed his own declaration testifying that Plaintiff remained incarcerated 

and was unreachable at the time (Doc. No. 32). Additionally, Plaintiff’s significant other, 

Maria Camacho, filed a declaration of her own, testifying that she was present when 

Plaintiff reviewed, assented to, and signed the settlement agreement at issue (Doc. No. 33). 

The Parties’ counsel appeared for the July 17, 2019 hearing; Plaintiff was, again, absent. 

In an effort to expeditiously resolve the ongoing dispute over the settlement agreement’s 

validity, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file his declaration by August 19, 2019 (Doc. No. 

34). The Court’s July 18, 2019 Order also permitted Defendant to respond, if it took issue

with any part of the declaration. In the event that Defendant disputed the legitimacy of 

Plaintiff’s declaration, the Court set a provisional hearing for August 30, 2019 on the 

matter. 

Although untimely, Plaintiff filed his declaration on August 22, 2019 (Doc. No. 35). 

Plaintiff testified to having reviewed the settlement agreement and that he personally 

signed the agreement and voluntarily assented to its terms. Thereafter, Defense counsel did 

not object to Plaintiff’s declaration to any extent. Given the three hearings held on this 

matter, the declarations submitted on by Plaintiff and on Plaintiff’s behalf, and Defendant’s 

lack of objection to Plaintiff’s declaration, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff personally 

executed the settlement agreement at issue. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that 

the Parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 27) be granted. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01725-WQH-WVG Document 36 Filed 08/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2