Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04392/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04392-4/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

MIKEL HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JT HOSPITALITY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-04392-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING ALTERNATIVE

RELIEF REQUESTED IN 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE 

JUDGMENT 

[Re: ECF 102]

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Judgment (“Motion”). Motion, ECF 102. 

The Court heard oral argument on Plaintiff’s Motion on June 20, 2019 (“the Hearing”). For the 

reasons below and as stated on the record at the Hearing, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED as to 

Plaintiff’s alternative request to order non-party TEJ, LLC to pay the amount owed, collectively 

with Defendants, and to amend the judgment to add TEJ, LLC. 

I. BACKGROUND

In this Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) action, Plaintiff Mikel Harris and 

Defendants JT Hospitality, Inc., dba Days Inn & Suites Santa Cruz, Pravin Patel and Naina Patel 

entered into a Court Enforceable Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) on January 30, 

2018. ECF 63. As part of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff and his 

counsel of record a total of $85,000 in damages, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs, on 

or before February 27, 2018. See Settlement Agreement ¶ 14. 

On March 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement for 

Failure to Pay by Defendants. ECF 71. On May 15, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to 

enforce the settlement agreement, thus ordering Defendants to pay $85,000 to Plaintiff pursuant to 

the Settlement Agreement. See Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, 

ECF 88. Also on May 15, 2018, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against 

Defendants consistent with the terms of the parties’ Settlement Agreement. See Judgment, 

ECF 89. However, Defendants have yet to pay the amount owed Plaintiff. See Clefton Decl. ¶ 2, 

Case 5:16-cv-04392-BLF Document 106 Filed 06/26/19 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

ECF 102-1. On January 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Enforce Judgment, pursuant 

to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 70 and 71. See Motion at 2, ECF 102. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70 provides relief for judgment creditors who require 

court assistance to enforce a judgment involving the performance of a specific act by the judgment 

debtor. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 70. Meanwhile, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71 provides that 

“[w]hen an order grants relief for a nonparty or may be enforced against a nonparty, the procedure 

for enforcing the order is the same as for a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 71. In other words, Rule 71 

permits the Court to enforce a judgment against non-parties who are on notice. See Peterson v. 

Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1323–24 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Rule 71 was intended to assure 

that process be made available to enforce court orders in favor of and against persons who are 

properly affected by them, even if they are not parties to the action.”) (internal quotation and 

citation omitted). 

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff submits public records showing that Defendant Pravin Patel transferred ownership 

of the subject property located at 600 Riverside Avenue, Santa Cruz, California, from Defendant 

JT Hospitality, Inc. to non-party TEJ, LLC on July 28, 2017, approximately six months prior to 

execution of the parties’ Settlement Agreement. See Clefton Decl. ¶ 8; Ex. 2 to Clefton Decl., 

ECF 102-1. The public records submitted by Plaintiff reveal that non-party TEJ, LLC is 

controlled by Defendant Pravin Patel. See Clefton Decl. ¶ 9; Ex. 3 to Clefton Decl., ECF 102-1. 

Plaintiff also points out that on June 14, 2018, approximately one month after the Court 

entered Judgment against Defendants, JT Hospitality, Inc. filed a certificate of dissolution with the 

California Secretary of State, stating that “[t]he corporation never incurred any known debts or 

liabilities,” see Certificate of Dissolution, Ex. 7 to Clefton Decl., ECF 102-1. Defendants Naina 

Patel and Pravin Patel signed this Certificate of Dissolution. See id. Therefore, Plaintiff argues, 

Defendants “perjured themselves to the State of California” because at the time of dissolution 

Judgment (ECF 89) had been entered against JT Hospitality, Inc. See Motion at 4. 

Based on these circumstances, Plaintiff’s Motion requests an order “disgorging TEJ, LLC, 

Case 5:16-cv-04392-BLF Document 106 Filed 06/26/19 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

of its interest in the Hotel property and vesting title with a third party to sell the hotel so that relief 

may be effectuated,” or, in the alternative, “[directing] the Defendants collectively, and [] TEJ, 

LLC, specifically, to pay the judgment owed . . . . [and] amend[ing] the judgment to add TEJ, 

LLC.” See Motion at 6–7. Neither Defendants nor non-party TEJ, LLC filed an opposition to 

Plaintiff’s Motion. However, Defendant Pravin Patel appeared at the Hearing. As discussed 

below and at the Hearing, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s alternative request for relief is warranted 

on the instant record. 

First, non-party TEJ, LLC had notice of Plaintiff’s Motion. Defendant Pravin Patel is 

listed as TEJ, LLC’s agent for service of process, see Ex. 3 to Clefton Decl., and Plaintiff served 

the instant Motion on Mr. Patel, see Proof of Service, ECF 103. Moreover, non-party TEJ, LLC 

appears to be “legally identified with” Mr. Patel. See Peterson, 140 F.3d at 1323–24; see also

Ex. 3 to Clefton Decl. Accordingly, TEJ, LLC had notice of Plaintiff’s Motion and an opportunity 

to respond. 

Second, the Court finds that enforcement of judgment against non-party TEJ, LLC is 

appropriate pursuant to Rule 71. At the Hearing, Mr. Patel represented that the subject property 

was owned by TEJ, LLC at the outset of this litigation and remains owned by TEJ, LLC to date. 

Thus, whether Mr. Patel’s assertion of the ownership timeline is true, or whether the subject 

property was later transferred to TEJ, LLC as Plaintiff alleges, TEJ, LLC is appropriately subject 

to judgment against it, collectively with Defendants. Defendant Patel did not object to this 

conclusion and he assured the Court that he intended to comply with the Settlement Agreement. 

In sum, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion in the alternative. 

IV. ORDER 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s alternative 

request to order non-party TEJ, LLC to pay the amount owed under the Settlement Agreement, 

collectively with Defendants, and to amend the judgment to add TEJ, LLC. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2019 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04392-BLF Document 106 Filed 06/26/19 Page 3 of 3