Johnson v. Parmar

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SCOTT JOHNSON, No. 2:15-cv-256-KJM-EFB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS NARESHKUMAR PARMAR; DAXA PARMAR; and Does 1-10, Defendants.

17 This case is before the court on plaintiff’s ex parte application for entry of stipulated judgment.1 ECF No. 20. For the reasons stated below, the request for entry of stipulated judgment should be granted.

20 Plaintiff filed this action against defendants Nareshkumar Parmar and Daxa Parmar, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”), the California Disabled Persons Act, and a claim for negligence. ECF No. 1. In October 2015, the parties reached a settlement of the case.

24 ECF No. 15. As part of that settlement, defendants agreed to pay plaintiff $10,000 in 25 monthly installments, with the first $400 payment due November 15, 2015. See ECF No. 20-3 at 2. The ///// The application was referred to the undersigned by the assigned district judge. See ECF No. 22.

1 agreement further provided that plaintiff would hold an executed stipulation for judgment2 for filing with the court in the event defendants defaulted under the terms of agreement. Id. 3 Notwithstanding that agreement, defendants made only one of the monthly payments.

4 Decl. of Dennis Price (20-1) ¶ 8. In August 2016, plaintiff sent a letter notifying defendants that they had breached the settlement agreement and demanding they cure the default. Id. ¶ 4.

6 Defendants did not respond to that letter or make any further payments, leaving $9,600 due under the agreement. Id. ¶¶ 5, 8.

8 The foregoing demonstrates defendants breached the terms of the settlement agreement, and therefore entry of the stipulation for judgment is appropriate.

10 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 11 1. Plaintiff’s ex parte application for entry of stipulated judgment (ECF No. 20) be granted; 13 2. The court approve the stipulation of judgment between plaintiff and defendants (ECF No. 20-4) and order: 15 a. That judgment be entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants; and: 16 b. Plaintiff be awarded the principal amount of $9,600, plus interest at 10 percent 17 per annum, and $1,500 for attorney fees and costs.

18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections ///// ///// ///// Pursuant to the stipulation for judgment, defendants agreed to pay plaintiff $10,000, plus interest at a rate of 10 percent per annum, less the amount of any payments made pursuant to the settlement agreement. ECF No. 20-4. Defendants also agreed to pay plaintiff $1,500 to cover the attorney fees and costs related to seeking entry of judgment. Id. wOAOe 2 LDU VOM EV ING VE MUO oO PR te AY VM VI || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3 | DATED: September 1, 2020.

4 Dating : heh bie 5 EDMUND F. BRENNAN ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE