James Shayler v. Vinood Patel et al, No. 2:2020cv00235 - Document 45 (C.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AS TO Defendants Vinood Patel and Chaya Patel 31 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II . (lc) Modified on 7/2/2020 .(lc).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
James Shayler v. Vinood Patel et al Doc. 45 1 O 2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court Central District of California 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT [31] v. 13 14 Case No. 2:20-cv-00235-ODW(KS) JAMES SHAYLER, VINOOD PATEL; et al., Defendants. 15 I. 16 INTRODUCTION 17 On January 8, 2020, Plaintiff James Shayler filed a complaint against 18 Defendants Vinood Patel and Chaya Patel (collectively, the “Patels”) for violations of 19 the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). As the Patels did not answer Shayler’s 20 Complaint within the required time, Shayler requested the Clerk enter default against 21 the Patels. The Clerk entered default the following day, and the Patels now move to 22 set aside the default. (Mot. to Set Aside Default (“Mot.”), ECF No. 31.) For the 23 reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the Patels’ Motion.1 II. 24 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 25 Shayler is a California resident who is allegedly disabled under the ADA. 26 (Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1.) He has had two knee replacement surgeries, suffers from an 27 28 After carefully considering the papers filed related to the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 acute pinched sciatic nerve and arthritis, has limited mobility in his legs, and uses a 2 walker when needed. (Compl. ¶ 1.) In 2019, Shayler attempted on three separate 3 occasions to visit a business establishment on the Patels’ property known as V & N 4 Nursery (“Nursery”) located at 3954 Sepulveda Blvd., Culver City, California. 5 (Compl. ¶¶ 2–3, 12.) 6 Despite having been newly constructed or remodeled, the Nursery lacked 7 accessible parking spaces or reserved spaces nearest the entrance in compliance with 8 the ADA. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16, 21.) Additionally, when Shayler visited the Nursery in 9 2019, he encountered further ADA violations, including a lack of appropriate parking 10 signage, accessible spaces, unloading and loading access aisles, and an appropriate 11 and accessible travel path. (Compl. ¶ 21.) Shayler alleges that the barriers on the 12 Nursey are readily achievable to remove. (Compl. ¶ 28.) Shayler intends to return to 13 the Nursery but is deterred by the physical barriers that have denied him access in the 14 past. (Compl. ¶ 26.) 15 On January 8, 2020, Shayler filed the Complaint alleging claims for violations 16 of the ADA and the California Unruh Act. (Compl. ¶¶ 32–58.) Shayler served the 17 Patels with process on January 16, 2020, and the Court dismissed Shayler’s California 18 Unruh Act claim three days later. (Proofs of Service, ECF Nos. 17, 18; Min. Order, 19 ECF No. 16.) The Patels retained counsel on January 26, 2020. (Decl. of Philip H. 20 Stillman (“Stillman Decl.”) ¶ 2, ECF No. 31-2; see Mot. 4.) At that time, the Patels’ 21 counsel was out of the country and emailed Shayler’s counsel to inform him that he 22 would be without internet and cell service until February 11, 2020, and to request a 23 two-week extension of time to respond to the Complaint. (Stillman Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) 24 The Patels believed a response to Shayler’s Complaint was originally due on February 25 17, 2020. (Stillman Decl. ¶ 3; see Mot. 4.) 26 On February 13, 2020, Shayler requested the Clerk to enter default against the 27 Patels, which the Clerk granted. (Req. for Entry of Default, ECF Nos. 20, 21; Default 28 by Clerk, ECF Nos. 22, 23.) The Patels’ counsel learned of the entry of default on 2 1 March 2, 2020, and five days later the Patels moved to set aside default. (Stillman 2 Decl. ¶ 5; Mot. 5–6.) III. 3 LEGAL STANDARD 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) authorizes a court to “set aside the entry 5 of default” for “good cause shown.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). District courts look at the 6 following three factors when deciding whether there is good cause to set aside the 7 entry of default: “(1) whether the plaintiff will be prejudiced, (2) whether the 8 defendant has a meritorious defense, and (3) whether culpable conduct of the 9 defendant led to the default.” Brandt v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., 653 F.3d 1108, 10 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Falk v. Allen, 739 F.2d 461, 463 (9th Cir. 1984)). 11 “Where timely relief is sought from a default . . . , doubt, if any, should be resolved in 12 favor of the motion to set aside the [default] so that cases may be decided on their 13 merits.” Mendoza v. Wight Vineyards Mgmt., 783 F.2d 941, 945–46 (9th Cir. 1986) 14 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). IV. 15 DISCUSSION The Court addresses the aforementioned three factors to determine whether 16 17 there is good cause to set aside default. 18 A. Prejudice to Shayler 19 The first factor requires the Court to consider whether setting aside default will 20 prejudice Shayler. See Brandt, 653 F.3d at 1111. “To be prejudicial, the setting aside 21 of a [default] . . . must result in greater harm than simply delaying resolution of the 22 case.” TCI Grp. Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 701 (9th Cir. 2001). The 23 Court is sensitive to Shayler’s interest in realizing immediate injunctive relief, 24 especially as ADA violations have the potential to continue to harm him and other 25 individuals. However, Shayler did not grossly invest in litigation, and a decision to 26 set aside default will not prevent him from litigating this matter on the merits. 27 Furthermore, Shayler’s only purported harm is a delay in resolution. (Opp’n to Mot. 28 (“Opp’n”) 5, ECF No. 32.) This is insufficient to resolve this matter on procedural 3 1 grounds. TCI Grp. Life, 244 F.3d at 701. Additionally, the Court is concerned that 2 the Patels may suffer greater harm if denied their day in court. 3 Shayler’s asserted prejudice is merely delay, and the Patels are prepared to move 4 forward with litigation, this factor weighs in the Patels’ favor. 5 B. Thus, because Meritorious Defense 6 The second factor requires the Court to consider whether the Patels have a 7 meritorious defense to Shayler’s ADA claim. See Brandt, 653 F.3d at 1111. The 8 burden on the Patels is not great, and they need only present specific facts that, if true, 9 would demonstrate a meritorious defense. TCI Grp. Life, 244 F.3d at 700. 10 Shayler alleges the Nursery violated several Title III ADA standards, including 11 noncompliant parking spaces, parking signage, unloading and loading access aisle, 12 and travel paths. (Compl. ¶ 21.) Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the 13 basis of a disability at places of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). To 14 successfully state a Title III claim, Shayler must show he is disabled within the 15 meaning of the ADA, the Patels own, lease, or operate a place of public 16 accommodation, and Shayler was denied public accommodations by the Patels 17 because of his disability. Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir. 18 2007). 19 establish standing by demonstrating he suffered an injury-in-fact traceable to the 20 Patels’ conduct, the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision, and there 21 is a “‘real and immediate threat of repeated injury’ in the future.” Chapman v. Pier 1 22 Imps. (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 946 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 23 U.S. 488, 496 (1974)). To bring a Title III ADA claim for injunctive relief, Shayler must also 24 The Patels raise several defenses to Shayler’s ADA claim. The Patels reject 25 Shayler’s allegation that he was denied public accommodations because of his 26 disability. (Mot. 10.) Additionally, the Patels challenge Shayler’s standing to bring a 27 Title III ADA claim, asserting that Shayler did not attempt to access the Nursery and 28 therefore suffered no injury-in-fact. (Mot. 10.) The Court finds that these specific 4 1 facts, if true, would demonstrate meritorious defenses to Shayler’s claims. Thus, this 2 factor weighs in the Patels’ favor. 3 C. Culpability 4 The third and final factor requires the Court to determine whether the Patels’ 5 culpability led to the entry of default. See Brandt, 653 F.3d at 1111. “[A] defendant’s 6 conduct is culpable if [they have] received actual or constructive notice of the filing of 7 the action and intentionally failed to answer.” 8 (emphasis omitted). 9 ignored the summons. (Opp’n 3.) The Court finds this argument unavailing. The 10 Patels retained counsel who promptly emailed Shayler’s counsel regarding his 11 out-of-office status and asked for an extension. (Stillman Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) Patels’ 12 counsel asserts that their failure to respond in a timely manner resulted from a 13 miscommunication regarding the deadline. (Mot. 8.) The Court finds that the Patels’ 14 immediate action in retaining an attorney demonstrates that the Patels did not ignore 15 the summons and had every intention of litigating. The miscommunication regarding 16 the deadline supports their lack of culpability. Given these facts, the Court does not 17 find that the Patels intentionally failed to answer. Thus, this factor weighs in the 18 Patels’ favor. TCI Grp. Life, 244 F.3d at 697 Shayler argues that the Patels intentionally did not act and 19 Setting aside default will not prejudice Shayler, the Patels have legitimate 20 meritorious defenses to Shayler’s claims, and entry of default is not the result of 21 culpability by the Patels. Furthermore, policy indicates that doubts should be resolved 22 in favor of decisions on the merits rather than on procedural grounds. Mendoza, 783 23 F.2d at 945–46. For these reasons, the Court finds good cause to set aside default. 24 25 26 27 28 5 V. 1 CONCLUSION 2 Having considered the three factors to show good cause, the Court GRANTS 3 the Patels’ Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default. The Court shall determine this case 4 on the merits. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 July 2, 2020 9 10 11 ____________________________________ OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
