Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01555/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01555-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Becky Barnes-Boers
Plaintiff
Harold D. Tozier
Defendant

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 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BECKY BARNES-BOERS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HAROLD D. TOZIER, in his individual 

and representative capacity as Trustee, 

Tozier Family Revocable Trust, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-01555-MCE-CMK 

ORDER 

Through this lawsuit, Plaintiff Becky Barnes-Boers (“Plaintiff”) seeks injunctive and 

monetary relief for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh 

Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act against Defendant Harold D. 

Tozier (“Defendant”). Plaintiff also asserts a claim for negligence against Defendant 

based on the aforementioned statutory violations. Plaintiff had some difficulty locating 

Defendant’s whereabouts, and made two separate motions for service by publication 

(ECF Nos. 5 and 12). The Court denied both motions for service by publication. ECF 

Nos. 9 and 14. 

Before Plaintiff served Defendant with the Complaint, the Court stayed the action 

and referred it to the Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) Division for 

scheduling of a Settlement Conference before a magistrate judge. ECF No. 15. Six 

Case 2:13-cv-01555-MCE-CMK Document 22 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 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 

2 

months later, no settlement conference had been scheduled. Accordingly, the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to file a written status report advising the Court as to the status of this 

case. ECF No. 16. Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a declaration that Defendant had not 

been served because the case had been stayed. ECF No. 18. 

On August 5, 2015, Plaintiff claimed to have served Defendant by leaving a copy 

of the necessary papers with an office manager at his business and by mailing a copy of 

the papers to his purported mailing address. ECF No. 19. On August 31, 2015, Plaintiff 

requested entry of default as to Defendant for failure to respond to the Complaint. ECF 

No. 20. The Clerk of Court entered default in accordance with Plaintiff’s request shortly. 

Because this case has been continuously stayed since February 24, 2015, the 

Clerk of Court should not have entered default against Defendant on September 2, 

2015. Accordingly, the Entry of Default (ECF No. 21) is hereby VACATED. 

Furthermore, the stay of proceedings issued on February 24, 2015 is LIFTED. Plaintiff is 

hereby ordered to serve a copy of this Order on Defendant. Defendant shall have 21 

days from the date Plaintiff serves him with a copy of this Order to file an answer or other 

responsive pleading. If Defendant fails to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint 

within that time frame, Plaintiff may refile her Request for Entry of Default. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 20, 2016 

Case 2:13-cv-01555-MCE-CMK Document 22 Filed 01/21/16 Page 2 of 2