Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00756/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00756-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shazia Anjum
Defendant
Nadeem Akhtar Anjum
Defendant
David Robinson
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID ROBINSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NADEEM AKHTAR ANJUM and 

SHAZIA ANJUM, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-00756 DJC AC 

ORDER and 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. ECF No. 8. 

The motion was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(19). For the reasons 

set forth below, the undersigned recommends plaintiff’s motion be DENIED. The court also 

ORDERS defendant Shazia Anjum to enter an appearance in this case by January 31, 2025. 

I. Background 

Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on March 12, 2024. ECF No. 1. In the complaint, plaintiff 

David Robinson filed alleges defendant Nadeem Akhtar Anjum and defendant Shazia Anjum 

(collectively “defendants”), are the owners of the real property located at 720 Florida Street in 

Vallejo, California (“Property”) where the business Solano Tires and Wheels operates 

(“Business” or “Solano Tires and Wheels”), and that defendants violated the Americans with 

Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act by failing to ensure that there was full and equal 

Case 2:24-cv-00756-DJC-AC Document 11 Filed 01/02/25 Page 1 of 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 

2 

access at the property. Id. A notice of summons returned executed for each defendant was filed 

on March 29, 2024. ECF Nos. 4, 5. 

On April 23, 2024, plaintiff requested the Clerk’s entry of default against defendants. 

ECF No. 6. The Clerk entered default on April 24, 2024. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff moved for default 

judgment on September 10, 2024. ECF No. 8. The motion was initially set for hearing on 

October 16, 2024. Id. The court vacated the hearing ordered the motion to be heard on the 

papers. ECF No. 9. On December 16, 2024, defendant Nadeem Akhtar Anjum appeared in pro 

se and filed an Answer. ECF No. 10. The Answer reads in its entirety, “All repairs to driveway 

is done and pictures are provided. We as small business owner are struggling financialy [sic] so 

please have mercy on us.” ECF No. 10 at 1. Photos are attached. ECF No. 10 at 2-6. Plaintiff 

did not acknowledge the Answer or make any responsive filings. 

II. Analysis 

 Default judgment is not appropriate in this case, where at least one defendant1 has 

appeared and indicated that he wishes to defend or settle this lawsuit on the merits. “[A] 

defendant’s default does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to a court-ordered judgment.” 

PepsiCo, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1174 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Draper v. 

Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924-25 (9th Cir. 1986)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b) (governing the entry of 

default judgments). Instead, the decision to grant or deny an application for default judgment lies 

within the district court’s sound discretion. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 

1980). In making this determination, the court will consider the following factors: 

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of 

plaintiff's substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) 

the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute 

concerning material facts; (6) whether the default was due to 

excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. 

1

 The court notes that only one defendant signed the Answer, even though the property at issue is 

allegedly co-owned; defendant Nadeem appears to be attempting to answer on behalf of both 

defendants. As a pro se defendant, Nadeem Akhtar Anjum cannot represent co-defendant Shazia 

Anjum. C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir.1987). Accordingly, 

Shazia Anjum will be ordered to appear and join Nadeem Anjum’s answer, or plaintiff may move 

for default judgment against her by subsequent motion. 

Case 2:24-cv-00756-DJC-AC Document 11 Filed 01/02/25 Page 2 of 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 

3 

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Default judgments are ordinarily 

disfavored. Id. at 1472. 

 The court finds that the balance of the Eitel factors disfavors entry of default judgment at 

this time. As to the first factor of prejudice to plaintiff, plaintiff argues in his motion that he 

“suffered disability discrimination due to Defendants’ failure to address architectural barriers to 

accessibility at the Property. Defendants failed to appear and defend these claims, and Plaintiff is 

without recourse unless the Court issues a judgment requiring Defendants modify the property to 

cease the discriminatory conduct.” ECF No. 8-1 at 7-8. Defendant’s recent filing indicates that 

the property has, in fact, been modified and that defendants are interested in resolving this case. 

ECF No. 10. A defendant has appeared in this case, and it appears to the court that there is a 

potential path to resolution other than default judgment. Further, plaintiff did not acknowledge or 

respond to the Answer, which was filed more than sixty days ago, on the date the motion for 

default judgment came ripe for decision. This indicates a lack of urgency on the part of plaintiff, 

and the court concludes that plaintiff will not be prejudiced by any delay in this case caused by 

denial of default judgment at this juncture. 

Additionally, the sum of money at stake favors denial of default judgment. Plaintiff seeks 

a total award of $13,180.50, a substantial sum for the defendants, particularly where Mr. Anjum 

has appeared in pro se and made the court and plaintiff aware of his financial challenges. ECF 

No. 8 at 2. Finally, where defendant has appeared and made some argument as to the merits of 

plaintiff’s claims, the seventh Eitel factor is dispositive. In light of “the strong policy underlying 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits,” entry of default judgment 

should be denied. 

III. Conclusion 

For the reasons set forth above, it is ORDERED that defendant Shazia Anjum file an 

appearance in this case no later than January 31, 2025. Each defendant appearing in pro se must 

sign all filings; one defendant cannot speak on behalf of the other. 

Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for default judgment 

(ECF No. 8) be DENIED. 

Case 2:24-cv-00756-DJC-AC Document 11 Filed 01/02/25 Page 3 of 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 

4 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: December 30, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-00756-DJC-AC Document 11 Filed 01/02/25 Page 4 of 4