Brosnan v. Burrough and Sons Automotive, Inc.

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
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHN BROSNAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
BURROUGH AND SONS AUTOMOTIVE,
INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cv-03667-SI
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND
DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT
Dkt. No. 37
On July 31, 2026, the Court held a hearing on self-represented plaintiff John Brosnan’s
motion for default judgment. Brosnan did not appear at the hearing, nor did he contact the Court’s
Clerk to request a continuance or otherwise explain his absence. Based upon Brosnan’s failure to
comply with court orders as well as his failure to prosecute this case, the Court has determined that
it is appropriate to dismiss this case without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b). The Court also DENIES plaintiff’s motion for default judgment.
The Court recounts the relevant procedural history that reflects Brosnan’s noncompliance
with court orders and failure to prosecute. Brosnan filed this case on June 18, 2024, against
defendant Burrough and Sons, an automotive repair business in El Sobrante, California, alleging a
single cause of action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) for failure to have a
disabled parking space. The complaint listed a Los Angeles address for Brosnan. Dkt. No. 1.
The case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Spero. On October 22, 2024, Brosnan
moved for entry of default, and on February 21, 2025, Brosnan moved for default judgment seeking
Case 3:24-cv-03667-SI Document 44 Filed 08/04/26 Page 1 of 4

2
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
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
$5,500 in damages as well as injunctive relief. Dkt. Nos. 6, 8. Both motions listed the same Los
Angeles address for Brosnan as the address on the complaint. Id. On March 13, 2025, Judge Spero
issued a Report and Recommendation finding that the allegations of the form complaint were too
vague to determine whether there was an ADA violation or if Brosnan had standing for injunctive
relief, and noting that the ADA only provided for injunctive relief and not damages. Judge Spero
recommended that Brosnan’s motion for default judgment be denied and that Brosnan be allowed
to file an amended complaint, and Judge Spero requested reassignment of this case to a district court
judge.
The case was reassigned to this Court on March 13, 2025, and on April 4, 2025, the Court
adopted Judge Spero’s Report and Recommendation, denied the motion for default judgment, and
granted leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 13. After Brosnan filed an amended complaint
that only asserted an ADA claim,1 the Court held an initial case management conference and
explained to Brosnan that he could not seek Unruh Act damages because he had not alleged a claim
under that statute. Dkt. No. 17. The Court granted Brosnan leave to file a second amended
complaint (“SAC”), and Brosnan filed the SAC on July 22, 2025. Dkt. No. 18. The SAC is the
operative complaint and alleges claims under the ADA and the Unruh Act.
On September 15, 2025, the Court held a case management conference and explained to
Brosnan he had not properly served the SAC, and that after he did so, he should request entry of
default and move for default judgment. Dkt. No. 23. After Brosnan filed a proof of service, the
Court issued an order on November 4, 2025, again advising Brosnan that the next steps were to seek
entry of default and then default judgment. Dkt. No. 30. The Court set a deadline of November 14,
2025 for Brosnan to seek entry of default. Id.
Brosnan did not seek an extension of the deadline, but on December 7, 2025, he requested
that the Clerk enter default. Dkt. No. 31. The Clerk entered default on December 10, 2025. Dkt.
No. 32. Brosnan did not take any further action in the case, and the Court set a status conference
1 The amended complaint listed a Pinole, California address for Brosnan. Dkt. No. 14.
Starting with the amended complaint, Brosnan has listed either a Pinole or an El Sobrante address
on his pleadings.
Case 3:24-cv-03667-SI Document 44 Filed 08/04/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
for February 20, 2026. Dkt. No. 33. The Court held the status conference on February 20, 2026,
and Brosnan did not appear, nor did he inform the Court that he could not or would not appear. Dkt.
No. 34. That same day, the Court issued an order noting Brosnan’s non-appearance and again
advising Brosnan that he needed to file a motion for default judgment. Dkt. No. 36. The order also
stated, “In connection with his motion, Mr. Brosnan must file a declaration under penalty of perjury
stating where he is living and how long he has been living there.” Id. The Court sought clarity on
where Brosnan lives because his residence is relevant to whether Brosnan has standing to bring a
claim under the ADA, and the ADA claim is the basis for this Court’s federal jurisdiction.
On April 20, 2026, Brosnan filed the current motion for default judgment. Dkt. No. 37. The
motion seeks $5,500 in damages and does not seek injunctive relief. In response to the February
20, 2026 order, Brosnan filed a declaration stating “I am living in my vehicle, I don’t remember the
exact date it started, location changes daily.” Id.
In an order filed July 7, 2026, the Court continued the hearing on Brosnan’s motion for
default judgment, found that the declaration did not comply with the February 20, 2026 order, and
directed Brosnan to file a supplemental declaration “stating what city or cities he is living in and
how long he has been living in those locations, and explaining what his relationship is/was” to the
three addresses associated with plaintiff in the docket. Dkt. No. 41. Brosnan did not file a
declaration, and as stated earlier, he did not appear for the July 31, 2026 hearing scheduled on his
motion for default judgment.
As this recounting of the procedural history of this case demonstrates, Brosnan has failed to
comply with court orders, failed to appear at several scheduled hearings without explanation, and
failed to prosecute this case. The Court needs to manage its docket and the public has an interest in
the expeditious resolution of litigation. Since the inception of this litigation, it has not been clear
whether Brosnan actually has standing to seek injunctive relief under the ADA, and the Court notes
that current motion for default judgment does not seek injunctive relief. Thus, while there is a public
policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits, Brosnan’s failure to comply with court orders has
frustrated the Court’s ability to reach the merits. For these reasons, the Court finds it appropriate to
dismiss this case without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and DENIES
Case 3:24-cv-03667-SI Document 44 Filed 08/04/26 Page 3 of 4

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
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
the pending motion for default judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 4, 2026 ______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-03667-SI Document 44 Filed 08/04/26 Page 4 of 4