Thomas Joseph Goddard v. Sares-Regis Group, Inc., et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 21, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05882
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 THOMAS JOSEPH GODDARD, Case No. 25-cv-05882-EMC (EMC)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

10 SARES-REGIS GROUP, INC., et al., Docket No. 38 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Dkt. 14 No. 38. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED WITH 15 PREJUDICE. 16 17 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff currently resides at 1910 N. Main St, Unit 627, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 in an 19 apartment owned by Defendant APARTMENTS CAPITAL LLC, A D and managed by Defendant 20 SARES REGIS GROUP RESIDENTIAL, INC. In early March of 2025, Plaintiff requested extra 21 time for his rental payment grace period as a disability accommodation. Dkt. No. 24-1 at 7. On 22 March 13, Defendants granted this accommodation, allowing Plaintiff to pay rent by the seventh 23 of the month without being charged a late fee or pay-or-quit notice. Id. Defendants noted that if 24 rent was not paid by the seventh of the month, the late fee would be applied and a 3-day notice 25 served. Id. Shortly after being granted this accommodation, Plaintiff failed to pay rent within the 26 extended grace period. Dkt. No. 24 at 3. After Plaintiff continued to fail to pay rent, Defendant 27 served him with a pay-or-quit notice on July 10. Id. The same day, Plaintiff requested a new 1 refused this request and this lawsuit followed. 2 3 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 4 On July 14, Plaintiff filed the instant suit, seeking an ex parte temporary restraining order 5 against his eviction. Dkt. Nos. 1-2. After a hearing, the Court granted the TRO in limited part, 6 restraining Defendants from initiating an unlawful detainer action against Plaintiff for 28 days, and 7 set a preliminary injunction hearing. Dkt. No. 21. After hearing the parties’ oral argument, the 8 Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction because Plaintiff had not shown 9 likelihood of irreparable harm, Plaintiff had not shown the balance of hardships tipped sharply in 10 his favor, and Plaintiff had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Dkt. No. 29. 11 Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied. Dkt. No. 33. On September 12 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a FAC stating the following causes of action: 1) Fair Housing Act – 13 disability discrimination; 2) Fair Housing Act – religious discrimination; 3) Fair Housing Act – 14 Retaliation; 4) Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA), Title II ; 5) Rehabilitation Act – Section 15 504; 6) Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights; 7) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; 8) 16 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 9) Fair Housing Act – Breach of Agreed Reasonable 17 Accommodation; 10) Discrimination. Dkt. No. 36. 18 On September 18, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff’s deadline to 19 file a response to the Motion to Dismiss was October 2, 2025. Dkt. No. 38. Plaintiff failed to file 20 a response to the Motion to Dismiss by October 2, and did not seek any extension of time or 21 otherwise provide an explanation for this failure to respond, although on October 6 Plaintiff 22 requested leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 45. On October 8, Defendants 23 filed a Notice of Plaintiff’s Non-Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 47. 24 On October 10, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. Dkt. No. 49. Due 25 to Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court granted Plaintiff a sua sponte extension to respond to the 26 Motion to Dismiss until October 16, two weeks after the response was originally due. Id. The 27 Court warned Plaintiff that if Plaintiff failed to file a response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, 1 16, and as of the entry of this Order, has still not filed a response. 2 Plaintiff has made other filings, however. In violation of the Court’s October 10 Order 3 that, due to Plaintiff’s unprompted and voluminous filings, Plaintiff must seek leave of Court 4 before making further filings (other than the late motion to dismiss response) Plaintiff has 5 continued in this conduct, making five additional filings with a combined page-count of over 700 6 pages over the span of ten days. Dkt. Nos. 50, 51, 53, 54, 56. On October 14, Plaintiff also failed 7 to appear at the scheduled 1:30 pm Case Management Conference hearing. Instead of appearing, 8 Plaintiff filed a same-day motion for an “emergency hearing” for 3:30 pm that afternoon, in 9 violation of Local Rule 7-2(a). Dkt. No. 53. 10 On October 20, Defendant filed a notice noting Plaintiff’s continued failure to oppose its 11 motion, despite the Court’s October 16 deadline. Dkt. No. 56. Less than an hour later, Plaintiff 12 filed a 192-page “Emergency Response to Defendants’ Notice of Non-Opposition,” in which he 13 argued that his Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and proposed Second 14 Amended Complaint constituted his opposition. Dkt. No. 56. 15 16 III. DISCUSSION 17 A motion may be granted when a party fails to oppose it. Local Rule 7-3(a-b); Rider v. 18 JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., No. 20-CV-06888-LHK, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12486, at *4 (N.D. 19 Cal. Jan. 22, 2021) (“[A] district court may properly grant a motion for failure to file an 20 opposition.”; accord, e.g., Gwaduri v. INS, 362 F.3d 1144, 1146-47, n.3 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding 21 that it “is beyond question” that courts may grant unopposed motions). Plaintiff has not filed an 22 opposition despite multiple warnings from Defendants and this Court. To the extent that Plaintiff 23 relies on Rule 15, Rule 15 makes clear that a party may amend its pleadings “once as a matter of 24 course” and in “all other cases” may amend only with leave of court or consent of the opposing 25 party. Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 15(1)-(2). Here, the Court denied Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended 26 Complaint. Dkt. No. 49. The Court grants the unopposed motion to dismiss. 27 Beyond Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose, the merits also support dismissal. Plaintiffs’ 100- 1 including the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disability Act, alleging disability-based 2 and religious discrimination. The FAC, like Plaintiff’s other filings, devotes countless pages to 3 extraneous issues, including actions taken by non-parties such as his former employer and 4 “statistical analysis.” See e.g. Dkt. No. 36 at 3 (“Additional evidence of systematic discrimination 5 includes the unprecedented mass recusal of all thirty-nine Contra Costa Superior Court judges on 6 July 24, 2025 (Ex. DD), ongoing seizure of essential assistive technology devices preventing 7 compliance with court-ordered treatment (Ex. EE), and cross-jurisdictional retaliation documented 8 in federal proceedings in New Jersey (Ex. FF) and employment discrimination proceedings in this 9 District (Ex. GG). The mathematical probability of these coordinated events occurring randomly is 10 less than 10−36, equivalent to selecting a specific grain of sand from all beaches on Earth.”); id. at 11 9 (“The mathematical precision of these events—termination exactly 365 days before eviction 12 proceedings on July 15, 2025—demonstrates coordination exceeding random probability. 13 Anniversary timing analysis yields a Z-score of 10.66 standard deviations (p < 10−26), 14 establishing presumptive evidence of conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).”); id. at 15 (“The 15 probability of repossession occurring five days before anniversary of previous vehicle theft is less 16 than 1 in 73 (p = 5/365 = 0.0137)”); id. at 18 (“Following Plaintiff’s purchase of Israeli stickers on 17 Amazon, systematic service discrimination began across multiple platforms.”). The complaint 18 does not comply with Rule 8’s requirement that a claim must be “short and plain.” Fed. R. Civ. 19 Pro. 8(a)(2). This alone is another ground for dismissal. See e.g, McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 20 1172, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996). 21 The core of Plaintiff’s complaint, as the Court understands it, is that Defendants refused to 22 accommodate Plaintiffs’ disability and medical issues. Although Defendants granted Plaintiffs’ 23 request for a grace period to pay rent until the seventh day of the month, Plaintiff claims in the 24 FAC that Defendants violated this accommodation by serving a pay-or-quit notice. The complaint 25 does not address the undisputed fact that shortly after receiving this accommodation, Plaintiff 26 failed to pay rent and has not paid rent since. See Dkt. No. 29 (as of this August, Plaintiff’s 27 arrearage was over $7,000). The FAC also omits the fact, conceded by Plaintiff at his hearing for 1 decrease from $2,850 to $400 until Plaintiff receives money from his other pending lawsuits and 2 disability claims. See id. As the Court explained in its Order denying a preliminary injunction, a 3 denial of “meaningful access” to a program due to a person’s inability to “satisfy a condition of 4 eligibility because of his financial circumstances” is not a violation of the ADA. See Weinreich v. 5 Los Angeles Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth., 114 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir. 1997); Dkt. No. 29. Plaintiff 6 also argues that Defendants’ filing of a pay-or-quit notice was retaliation, but this notice followed 7 Plaintiffs’ failure to pay rent for two months, a clear non-retaliatory basis. Dkt. No. 29. Finally, 8 all of Plaintiffs’ claims of religious discrimination relate to actions by individuals that are 9 unaffiliated with Defendants, including Plaintiff’s former employer Slickdeals, other employees at 10 Slickdeals, and his former girlfriend. While Plaintiff claims his former girlfriend is affiliated with 11 Defendants, the exhibits he points to do not support this. See e.g., Dkt. No. 36 at 12 (citing 12 Exhibit Q at Dkt. No. 10-1 at 212); see also Dkt. No. 38 at 8. 13 Defendants seek dismissal with prejudice. A court may deny leave to amend after 14 considering factors such as “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of the 15 amendment, and whether the party has previously amended his pleadings.” Bonin v. Calderon, 59 16 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir.1995). Here, the factors support dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiff has 17 already amended his complaint in September with the benefit of the Court’s ruling denying his 18 preliminary injunction. Rather than providing new facts, the FAC provided additional irrelevant 19 incidents, argument, and statistics, and omitted relevant facts that Plaintiff had already admitted to 20 before the Court. 21 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint further confirms that 22 amendment would be futile. Plaintiff sought amendment to address “new developments” 23 including (1) that Defendants served another pay-or-quit notice (2) that Defendants expressed 24 willingness to participate in settlement discussions (3) that the California Civil Rights Department 25 resumed mediation proceedings in Plaintiffs’ separate case there (4) that Defendants filed a joint 26 case management statements providing their positions on discovery, trial, and settlement. Dkt. 27 No. 49. As the Court explained in its order denying leave to amend, the state of settlements 1 trial, and settlement” are not relevant to Plaintiff's pleadings. Jd. The Court found that 2 || Defendants’ service of an additional pay-or-quit notice would not alter Plaintiffs’ pleadings, since 3 || Defendants’ basis for serving the pay-or-quit remains Plaintiff's failure to pay rent. Id. The SAC 4 || that Plaintiff sought to file was over 150-pages, heightening rather than curing Plaintiff's Rule 8 5 || problem. Plaintiff's prior amendment and his proposed second amendment demonstrate that leave 6 || to amend is futile in this case. Plaintiffs case is legally meritless. 7 The factors of bad faith and prejudice to the opposing party also strongly support dismissal 8 || with prejudice. As noted, Plaintiff's filings in this action have been excessive, almost wholly 9 irrelevant to the claims alleged, and have made factual statements unsupported or contradicted by 10 || the attached exhibits. Defendants have already reviewed over a thousand pages of confused and 11 legally irrelevant filings for claims that the Court had found to lack merit even after amendment. 12 || There is no cause to require Defendants to undergo further time and litigation expense, particularly 5 13 as amendment would be futile. 14 Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiffs’ filing have contained repeated misrepresentations 3 15 of Plaintiffs prior statements and actions, Defendants’ actions, and the Court’s own actions. This a 16 || may stem from the fact that Plaintiffs’ filings have likely been generated in whole or in part 3 17 || through Generative Artificial Intelligence. Given Plaintiff's pro se and in forma pauperis status, 18 || the Court will not issue a show cause order under Rule 11 at this time. 19 Accordingly, for all the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is 20 || GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment. 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: October 21, 2025 26 27 28 EDWA . CHEN United States District Judge