Johnson v. Parmar et al
Plaintiff: Scott N. Johnson
Defendant: Gurminder Parmar and Fraiser Corp
Case Number: 2:2011cv01340
Filed: May 18, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Kimberly J. Mueller
Presiding Judge: Kendall J. Newman
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 28, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 20 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/28/12 ORDERING Plaintiff to file a supplemental brief and declaration, not to exceed 5 pages in total length, addressing the question of plaintiff's burden and the facts substantiating that remediation of the alleged barriers to access is "readily achievable." The required declaration may consist of an expert declaration or a declaration of plaintiff executed under penalty of perjury. The undersigned will re-address plaintiff's 11 MOTION for Default Judgment after plaintiff files his supplemental materials. Filing Deadline: 9/20/2012. (Meuleman, A)
January 6, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/5/12 VACATING 17 Findings and Recommendations. The case is REFERRED back to the Magistrate judge for further consideration in light of the above. (Meuleman, A)
October 21, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 17 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/20/11 RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's 11 motion for default judgment be granted. Judgment be entered in plaintiff's favor and against defendants Gurminder Parm ar, individually and doing business as Tokay Liquors. Plaintiff be awarded statutory damages in the amount of $8,000.00. Plaintiff be granted an injunction requiring defendant Parmar to provide readily achievable property alterations as outlined in this Order. The Clerk be directed to close this case. This matter is referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. 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. (Kastilahn, A)
July 13, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER for 8 DISMISSAL signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/12/2011. Defendant Fraiser Corporation is DISMISSED without prejudice. The case shall remain open for defendant Gurminder Parmar. (Marciel, M)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Johnson v. Parmar et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Scott N. Johnson
Represented By: Scott N. Johnson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Gurminder Parmar
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Fraiser Corp
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?