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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARSHALL LOSKOT, an individual,

and DISABILITY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT,

EDUCATION, SERVICES: HELPING YOU

HELP OTHERS, a California public

benefit corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED PETROLEUM TRUCK STOP;

RAKESH SEHGAL, an individual; and

SEHGAL, INC., a California

corporation,

Defendants.

CIV. S-04-1992 GEB PAN 

ORDER 

—NFN—

Plaintiffs commenced this action on September 24, 2004,

alleging civil rights violations under the Americans with

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., California Civil

Code §§ 51 et seq., 54, 54.1 and 54.3; California Health and

Safety Code §§ 19955 et seq., and California Business and

Case 2:04-cv-01992-GEB-PAN Document 26 Filed 05/23/05 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

1 In a status report filed January 7, 2005, plaintiffs stated defendant

Rakesh Sehgal was the agent for service of process for defendant Sehgal Inc.;

that after several unsuccessful attempts to serve these defendants at the

address on file with the California Secretary of State, plaintiffs’ process

server was informed that Mr. Sehgal had moved. “Plaintiffs next directed

their process server to attempt service at the address on a grant deed

recorded with Yolo County on October 23, 2003. Plaintiffs’ process server

reported the premises at this address were vacant. Plaintiffs then identified

two addresses “believed to be current.” One of these was vacant and the other

was a 7-Eleven store with which Mr. Sehgal “may be affiliated.” Service was

not effected at the second address despite several attempts. Finally

plaintiffs identified another address for Mr. Sehgal which “may be current”

where, apparently, the last attempt at substituted service was assertedly

made. 

2

Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.

All claims against defendant United Petroleum Truck Stop

were dismissed March 2, 2005. After informing the court of

difficulties in locating and serving defendants Rakesh Sehgal and

Sehgal Inc.,1 plaintiffs assert the two were served by

substituted service on January 23 and January 25, 2005, at the

same address. Certificates of service were filed on February 2,

2005. 

Neither remaining defendant has appeared in this action. 

On March 1, 2005, plaintiffs requested the Clerk of Court enter

the default of these defendants, which was done March 2. On

April 1, plaintiffs moved for default judgment pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2), seeking a comprehensive order directing

twenty-one specific accommodations at United Petroleum Truck

Stop, damages to Loskot in the sum $8,000 and attorney fees to

Disability Rights in the amount $12,625.52. 

Plaintiff’s motion was scheduled for hearing before this

court on May 18, 2005. E. D. Cal. L. R. 72-302(c)(19) (motions

Case 2:04-cv-01992-GEB-PAN Document 26 Filed 05/23/05 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

3

for default judgment referred to the magistrate judges). As oral

argument was unnecessary to address this matter, the hearing was

vacated and the court now issues this order.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2) permits substituted service of

process upon a defendant by leaving a copy of the summons and

complaint “at the individual’s dwelling house or usual place of

abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then

residing therein.” Plaintiffs assert they served Rakesh Sehgal

by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with Maurico

Rodriquez, a “co-tenant” of Rakesh Sehgal at an apartment

building but have not shown it is Sehgal’s “dwelling house or

usual place of abode” nor whether Mr. Rodriquez “resides

therein.” 

The court also notes that no allegation of the complaint,

if deemed admitted, by Sehgal or Sehgal, Inc., would entitle 

plaintiff to the requested injunctive relief at the United

Petroleum Truck Stop facility. (Plaintiffs aver they “do not

know the true names of defendants Rakesh Sehgal, an individual;

and Sehgal, Inc., a California corporation, their business

capacities, their ownership connection to the property and

business, nor their relative responsibilities in causing the

access violations herein complained of, and allege a joint

venture and common enterprise by all defendants.” Complaint,

para. 8.) 

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment is

denied. Plaintiffs are directed to show cause in writing within

Case 2:04-cv-01992-GEB-PAN Document 26 Filed 05/23/05 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

4

11 days of service of this order why the default of Rakesh Sehgal

and Sehgal Inc. should not be set aside (Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c))

and this case dismissed for failure to serve process upon these

defendants within 120 days (Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)). 

So ordered.

Dated: May 23, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01992-GEB-PAN Document 26 Filed 05/23/05 Page 4 of 4