Block v. Narwal ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 HENDRICK BLOCK, Case No. 1:22-cv-00597-ADA-EPG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING OCTOBER 28, 2022 HEARING, REQUIRING SUPPLEMENT 12 v. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 13 KASHMIRA SINGH NARWAL, et al., (ECF No. 12) 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Hendrik Block’s motion for default judgment 17 in this action brought, in part, under the American with Disabilities Act, alleging that Defendants 18 denied Plaintiff use of the goods, services, facilities, privileges and accommodations offered at a 19 Facility owned, operated, and/or leased by Defendants during Plaintiff’s visit. (ECF No. 2). Upon 20 review of the motion, the Court will vacate the hearing set for October 28, 2022, and will require 21 a supplemental filing. 22 In reviewing a motion for default judgment, one of the factors a court considers is “the 23 merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim.” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986). To 24 prevail on an ADA discrimination claim, a plaintiff must show, among other things, that “the 25 defendant is a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation.” 26 Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, the Facility is identified as 27 Scotty’s Liquor at 2206 N. Blackstone Avenue, Fresno, California. (ECF No. 1, p. 1). On this 28 1 point, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment argues that “Defendants own and/or operate the 2 Facility (Compl., ¶ 7), as evidenced by the Grant Deed (Declaration of Tanya E. Moore, filed 3 herewith (“Moore Decl.”), ¶ 15, Exhibit E) and Alcoholic Beverage Control license detail report 4 (Moore Decl., ¶ 18, Ex. H).” (ECF No. 12-1, p. 6). 5 Turning to the cited declaration of Attorney Tanya E. Moore, paragraph 15 states as 6 follows: 7 Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the Grant Deed for the Facility, reflecting that Defendant, Louis A. Gomez, Trustee of the Louis A. 8 Gomez and Lydia A. Gomez Revocable Living Trust, date May 4, 2007-Residual Trust, owns the real property on which the Facility is located. 9 (ECF No. 12-2, p. 3). The attached Exhibit E purports to be a grant deed to Defendant Louis A. 10 Gomez, as trustee of the Louis A. Gomez and Lydia A. Gomez revocable living trust, of property 11 located at “2206 N. Blackstone Ave.” (ECF No. 12-3 p. 14). However, this document does not 12 include any mention of the two other Defendants in this matter, Kashmira Singh Narwal and 13 Jaswinder Singh Sidhu. 14 Turning to paragraph 18 of the declaration, it states as follows: “Attached hereto as 15 Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of a California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 16 license detail report indicating that the liquor license for the Facility is held by Kashmira Singh 17 Narwal and Jaswinder Singh Sidhu.” (ECF No. 12-2, p. 4). However, no Exhibit H is attached to 18 the declaration. Moreover, Plaintiff’s motion fails to otherwise explain how Defendants Kashmira 19 Singh Narwal and Jaswinder Singh Sidhu “own and/or operate the Facility” as Plaintiff alleges. 20 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 21 1. The hearing set for October 28, 2022 (ECF No. 13) is vacated; 22 2. Plaintiff shall have until November 7, 2022, to file a supplement in support of 23 Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, providing all evidence and argument in support of 24 Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants Kashmira Singh Narwal and Jaswinder Singh Sidhu “own 25 and/or operate the Facility” at issue in this action. 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 1 3. After reviewing the supplement, the Court will reset the hearing if it believes one 2 | would be beneficial. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5} Dated: _ October 24, 2022 hey — 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28