Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06536/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-06536-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bay Area Auto Care, Inc.
Defendant
Ali Bozorghadad
Defendant
Parisa Bozorghadad
Defendant
Scott Johnson
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALI BOZORGHADAD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-06536-SVK 

ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A 

DISTRICT JUDGE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

ALI BOZORGHADAD, PARISA 

BOZORGHADAD, AND BAY AREA 

AUTO CARE, INC.

Re: Dkt. No. 24

Plaintiff Scott Johnson filed this action for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. Dkt. 1. The named defendants are Ali Bozorghadad, 

Parisa Bozorghadad, and Bay Area Auto Care, Inc. (collectively referred to as “Defendants”). Id. 

Plaintiff contends that at the times relevant to Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendants Ali and Parisa 

Bozorghadad owned the real property located at 1198 El Camino Real, Sunnyvale, California, and 

Defendant Bay Area Auto Care owned the Alliance Gas business located at the same address (the 

“Gas Station”). Id. at ¶¶ 2-11.

Defendants have not appeared in the action or opposed the motion for default judgment. 

The Court deems the motion for default judgment appropriate for determination without oral 

argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). 

Although Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (Dkt. 7), none of the Defendants has consented. Accordingly, the Court 

directs the clerk to REASSIGN this case to a district judge with the following REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be DENIED. If all 

Defendants later consent to magistrate jurisdiction, the case may be reassigned to the undersigned 

magistrate judge.

I. BACKGROUND

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff is a level C-5 quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair for 

mobility and has a specially equipped van. Dkt. 1 (Complaint) at ¶ 1; see also Dkt. 24-4 (Johnson 

Case 4:17-cv-06536-HSG Document 26 Filed 02/28/20 Page 1 of 8
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

Decl.) at ¶¶ 2-3. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the configuration of the accessible parking 

space reserved for persons with disabilities, the path of travel to the outside restroom, and the 

entrance door hardware at the Gas Station violate Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA and the Unruh 

Act. Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 17-30. 

According to the proofs of service filed by Plaintiff:

• Bay Area Auto Care was served with copies of the summons and complaint by 

personal service on Defendant Ali Bozorghadad, an agent for service of process on

the company, at 700 S. Bernardo Ave., Suite 103, Sunnyvale, California 94087, on 

November 15, 2017. Dkt. 8.

• Defendants Ali and Parisa Bozorghadad were served with copies of the summons 

and complaint by substitute service on December 9, 2017, when the documents 

were left with “Amel ‘Doe’, person in charge,” at “SUNNYVALE UNION 76 

1198 W EL CAMINO REAL, Sunnyvale, California 94087,” and subsequently 

mailed to the same address. Dkt. 11, 12. Substitute service was made after 

unsuccessful attempts to serve the Bozorghadads on December 3, 6, and 9, 2017. 

Id.

None of the Defendants filed an answer or otherwise responded to the complaint. The 

Clerk of Court entered defaults against Bay Area Auto Care on December 11, 2017, and against 

Ali and Parisa Bozorghadad on January 22, 2018. Dkt. 10, 15, 16. 

Plaintiff now moves for default judgment against all three Defendants. Dkt. 24. Plaintiff 

filed a proof of service of the motion on all Defendants at the service addresses identified above. 

Dkt. 24-13. None of the Defendants filed a response to the motion for default judgment. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

After entry of default, a court may, in its discretion, enter default judgment. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 55; Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Before entering default 

judgment, the Court must assess the adequacy of the service of process on the party against whom 

default is requested. See Trustees of ILWU-PMA Pension Plan v. Coates, No. C-11-3998 EMC, 

2013 WL 556800, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2013). The Court must also determine whether it has 

Case 4:17-cv-06536-HSG Document 26 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 8
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

subject matter jurisdiction over the action and personal jurisdiction over the defaulted defendant. 

Id. at *3-4. 

If the Court concludes that the defaulted defendant was properly served and that the Court 

has jurisdiction, the Court must next consider whether default judgment is appropriate, 

considering seven factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the 

plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claims; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; 

(4) the sum of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of dispute concerning material facts; 

(6) whether default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy under the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 

1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). In considering these factors, the Court takes all well-pleaded factual 

allegations in the complaint as true, except those concerning damages. Televideo Sys., Inc. v. 

Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987).

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b) states that “the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one 

or more, but fewer than all, . . . parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just 

reason for delay.” The Ninth Circuit has held that where a complaint alleges that defendants are 

jointly liable or similarly situated and one of them defaults, “judgment should not be entered 

against the defaulting defendant until the matter has been adjudicated with regard to all 

defendants.” In re First T.D. & Inv., Inc., 253 F.3d 520, 532 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Frow v. De La 

Vega, 82 U.S. 552 (1872)).

III. SERVICE OF PROCESS 

As indicated above, “[i]n deciding whether to grant or deny default judgment, the Court 

must first assess the adequacy of the service of process on the party against whom default is 

requested because, if service were improper, that may well explain the failure of a defendant to 

appear in a lawsuit.” Folkmanis, Inc. v. Uptown Toys LLC, No. 18-cv-00955-EMC, 2018 WL 

4361140, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

A. Service on Bay Area Auto Care, Inc.

With regard to service on Defendant Bay Area Auto Care, Inc., Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(h)(1)(B) permits service on a corporation “by delivering a copy of the summons and 

Case 4:17-cv-06536-HSG Document 26 Filed 02/28/20 Page 3 of 8
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

complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by 

appointment or by law to receive service of process and—if the agent is one authorized by statute 

and the statute so requires—by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant.” Alternatively,

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(h)(1)(A) and 4(e)(1) authorize service on a corporation in 

accordance with state law. California Code of Civil Procedure § 416.10 provides that a 

corporation may be served by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to a person 

designed as agent for service of process or other specified persons associated with the corporation. 

Plaintiff contends that service on Bay Area Auto Care was proper because Ali 

Bozorghadad, who was served on behalf of the corporation, is the registered agent for service. 

Dkt. 24-1 at 8. The public records report submitted by Plaintiff supports this assertion. See 

Dkt. 24-7 at 4. In addition, that report identifies the corporate address as the same address where 

Mr. Bozorghadad was served on the corporation’s behalf. Compare id. with Dkt. 8.

Accordingly, the Court finds that service on Bay Area Auto Care was proper. 

Nevertheless, the Court RECOMMENDS DENIAL of Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment as 

to Bay Area Auto Care because, as discussed below, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that 

service on Defendants Ali and Parisa Bozorghadad was proper. Under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 54(b), “the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than 

all, ... parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Where, as 

here, the complaint appears to allege that Defendants are jointly liable or similarly situated, the Court 

RECOMMENDS that default judgment should not be entered against Bay Area Auto Care until the 

matter has been adjudicated with regard to all Defendants. See In re First T.D. & Inv., Inc., 253 F.3d 

at 532.

B. Service on Defendants Ali and Parisa Bozorghadad

With regard to service of individual Defendants Ali and Parisa Bozorghadad, the 

applicable California statute regarding substitute service of individual defendants permits 

substitute service by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the defendant’s usual place 

of abode (i.e., dwelling), usual place of business, or usual mailing address (other than a U.S. Postal 

Service post office box). Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(b). Copies of the summons and 

Case 4:17-cv-06536-HSG Document 26 Filed 02/28/20 Page 4 of 8
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

complaint must be left “in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person 

apparently in charge of [the defendant’s] office, place of business, or usual mailing address,” and 

copies must thereafter be mailed to the defendant at the same address where the documents were 

left. Id. Substitute service is permitted only “[i]f a copy of the summons and complaint cannot 

with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served ... .” Id. “[T]he 

burden is upon the plaintiff to show reasonable diligence to effect personal service and each case 

must be judged upon its own facts.” Evartt v. Superior Court, 89 Cal. App. 3d 795, 801 (Cal. Ct. 

App. 1979). Although there is no established formula for reasonable diligence, “[t]wo or three 

attempts to personally serve defendant at a ‘proper place’ ordinarily qualifies as ‘reasonable 

diligence.’” Weil and Brown, California Practice Guide: California Civil Procedure Before 

Trial, ¶ 4:198 (The Rutter Group June 2019) (citing cases).

There are a number of inconsistencies in the record before the Court concerning service of 

the Bozorghadads. First, in his motion for default judgment, Plaintiff asserts that “Ali 

Bozorghadad was personally served on November 15, 2017 at 700 S. Bernardo Ave., Ste 103, 

Sunnyvale, California,” citing the proof of service at Docket 8. Dkt. 24-1 at 8. However, the 

proof of service at Docket 8 is for service of Bay Area Auto Care by service on its registered 

agent, Ali Bozorghadad. Dkt. 8. Plaintiff bases his assertion that service on Bay Area Auto Care 

constituted service on Ali Bozorghadad on an argument that “[b]ecause Ali Bozorghadad is both a 

defendant and the registered agent for service for his business Bay Area Auto Care, Inc., service 

was properly made on these two defendants.” Id. However, on the section in the proof of service 

form for “[t]he ‘Notice to the Person Served’ (on summons),” the boxes are checked to indicate 

that the summons stated that notice was “[o]n behalf of: Bay Area Auto Care, Inc., a California 

Corporation under the following Code of Civil Procedure section: 416.10 (corporation).” Dkt. 8

at ¶ 6. The box to be checked if service was made on “an individual defendant” is not checked. 

Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s service of the summons and complaint on Defendant Bay Area Auto 

Care on November 15, 2017, did not give Defendant Ali Bozorghadad notice that he was also

being served as an individual defendant.

Second, although Plaintiff filed separate proofs of service for Ali and Parisa Bozorghadad, 

Case 4:17-cv-06536-HSG Document 26 Filed 02/28/20 Page 5 of 8
6

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

indicating that both individual defendants were served by substitute service on December 9, 2017

(Dkt. 11, 12), those proofs of service raise questions about whether the defendants were served at 

the correct place of business. The proofs of service both identify the location of substitute service 

on the Bozorghadads as “SUNNYVALE UNION 76 1198 W EL CAMINO REAL Sunnyvale, CA 

94087.” Dkt. 11 at ¶ 4; Dkt. 12 at ¶ 4. There is no mention of a “Union 76” or “76” gas station in 

the Complaint or other pleadings in this case. Instead, the Complaint refers repeatedly to an 

“Alliance Gas” station. Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 7-11. Similarly, the motion for default judgment, as well as 

the declarations from Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s investigator submitted in support of that motion, 

repeatedly identify the site as an “Alliance Gas station.” Dkt. 24-1 at 1, 2, 4; Dkt. 24-3 at ¶¶ 1, 2, 

6; Dkt. 24-4 at ¶¶ 4-5, 9-10. Site photographs submitted in support of the motion for default 

judgment show a gas station with “Alliance” signage and no “Union 76” or “76” signage at or 

around the time of service. Dkt. 24-6 at 3-5, 9-11.1 

Third, there are discrepancies concerning the address where the Bozorghadads were 

served. The Complaint, motion for default judgment, and supporting declarations identify the 

address of the relevant gas station as “1198 El Camino Real” in Sunnyvale, with no indication 

whether the subject business is on West El Camino Real, East El Camino Real, or elsewhere. Dkt. 

1 at ¶¶ 2-11; Dkt. 24-1 at 1, 2; Dkt. 24-4 at ¶ 3; Dkt. 24-5 at ¶ 1. However, the proofs of service 

on the Bozorghadads state that they were served at “1198 W EL CAMINO REAL” in Sunnyvale,

indicating that the service address was on West El Camino Real. Dkt. 11 at ¶ 4, Dkt. 12 at ¶ 4. 

This ambiguity is notable because El Camino Real is a lengthy street with multiple locations 

involving variations of the 1198 street address.2 Coupled with the confusion regarding the signage 

1

It appears from the site photographs submitted by Plaintiff that the site once may have had “76” 

signage. Dkt. 24-6 at 13 (captioned “Google Street View May 2008”), 14 (captioned “Google 

Street View February 2009). However, the same set of photographs show that the “76” signage 

had been removed at least by May 2016. Id. at 15 (captioned “Google Street View May 2016”). 

The site photographs also show that there was no “76” signage as of September 27, 2017 (id. at 3-

5) or October 25, 2017 (id. at 9-10; see also id. at 15 (captioned “Google Street View May 

2016”)). These photos indicate that the signage remained the same at least through September 

2018, with no “76” signage. Id. at 16. Therefore, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that there was 

“76” signage at the time of substitute service on the Bozorghadads on December 9, 2017, and the 

available evidence suggests otherwise. 

2 A search of Google Maps identifies addresses at 1198 West El Camino Real in Sunnyvale and 

1198 East El Camino Real in Santa Clara, approximately 3.6 miles apart. See

Case 4:17-cv-06536-HSG Document 26 Filed 02/28/20 Page 6 of 8
7

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

where Plaintiff alleges the Bozorghadads were served, this ambiguity undermines the adequacy of 

service of process. 

Fourth, there are also anomalies in the record as to when the Bozorghadads were served. 

As discussed above, the proofs of service concerning substitute service on the Bozorghadads 

indicate they were served on December 9, 2017. Dkt. 11 at ¶ 5(b); Dkt. 12 at ¶ 5(b). But the 

docket text entered by Plaintiff’s counsel when the proofs of service were filed with the Court on 

December 25, 2017, indicates that service took place on December 25, 2017. See ECF docket text 

for Dkt. 11 and 12. Standing alone, the Court might regard this as a simple typographical error. 

However, in Plaintiff’s requests to the Clerk to enter defaults against the Bozorghadads, as well as 

the sworn attorney declarations submitted in support of those requests, the date of service was 

identified as a third date, December 15, 2017. Dkt. 13 at 1; Dkt. 13-1 at ¶ 3; Dkt. 14 at 1; Dkt. 14-

1 at ¶ 3. In the current motion for default judgment, Plaintiff takes yet another position, arguing 

that Defendant Ali Bozorghadad was served (together with Bay Area Auto Care) on November 15, 

2017, rather than any of the multiple December 2017 service dates that appear elsewhere in the 

record. Dkt. 24-1 at 8. Plaintiff has thus taken three or four positions as to when service of the 

Bozorghadads occurred, the multiplicity of which undermines the adequacy of service of process. 

Fifth, and finally, the Court notes that the proofs of service of the Bozorghadads state that 

the summons and complaint were left with Amel “Doe.” Dkt. 11 at ¶ 5(b); Dkt. 12 at ¶ 5(b). This 

vague identification of the purported person in charge of the place of business where the papers 

was served is insufficient in light of the other questions that arise from the muddled record 

Plaintiff has presented.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/1198+W+El+Camino+Real,+Sunnyvale,+CA+94087/1198+E+

El+Camino+Real,+Santa+Clara,+CA+95051/@37.3692224,-

122.0611615,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x808fb6e8d8414e4d:0xb77ff196e4fd

a2cb!2m2!1d122.0560769!2d37.3733421!1m5!1m1!1s0x808fb5f0e42daaa3:0x9b9dcbdddeb26513!2m2!1d122.0001785!2d37.3521297!3e0. There is also an address at 1198 South El Camino Real in San 

Mateo. 

https://www.google.com/maps/place/1198+S+El+Camino+Real,+San+Mateo,+CA+94402/@37.5

559114,-

122.3207394,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x808f9e670fadb63f:0xca4b15c75f22df8e!8m2!3d

37.5559114!4d-122.3185454.

Case 4:17-cv-06536-HSG Document 26 Filed 02/28/20 Page 7 of 8
8

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

In light of the many inconsistencies and uncertainties in Plaintiff’s showing concerning 

how, where, and when the Bozorghadads were served, the Court cannot conclude that service of 

those individual defendants was proper. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS DENIAL of the 

motion for default judgment as to Defendants Ali Bozorghadad and Parisa Bozorghadad.

IV. DISPOSITION

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that service on 

Defendants Ali Bozorghadad and Parisa Bozorghadad was proper and thus RECOMMENDS 

DENIAL of Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment as to those Defendants. The Court further 

RECOMMENDS DENIAL of Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment as to Bay Area Auto Care

until the matter has been adjudicated with regard to all Defendants. Because Plaintiff has failed to 

demonstrate that service on all of the Defendants was adequate, the Court finds it unnecessary to 

consider the other factors regarding entry of default judgment. The Court orders the Clerk to 

REASSIGN this case to a district, and the Court RECOMMENDS DENIAL of the motion for 

default judgment as to all Defendants for the reasons discussed above.

Plaintiff shall promptly serve each Defendant with this Report and Recommendation and 

file a proof of service with the Court. Any party may file objections to this Report and

Recommendation within fourteen days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 72-2.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2020

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-06536-HSG Document 26 Filed 02/28/20 Page 8 of 8