ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, District Judge.

Defendant Hakmat Lababedy ("defendant") objects to proceeding with the scheduled Judgment Debtor Examination, indicating that he was never made aware of the default judgment proceedings. This is an Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Unruh Act case alleging that defendants failed to provide accessible parking spaces, and accessible counter space, at a Circle 7 establishment.

For the reasons stated below, the Judgment Debtor Examination will be vacated to be reset in the future if necessary, and a status conference will be scheduled for February 22, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., before the undersigned.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 21, 2016, plaintiff filed his complaint. He asserts that he served it, with a summons, on defendant on February 17, 2016. See ECF No. 7. On March 14, 2016, plaintiff filed a Proof of Service/Summons and Complaint. ECF No. 7. The Proof attests that plaintiff (through his "Registered California process server"), made nine (9) separate, unsuccessful attempts to effect personal service of the summons and complaint on defendant at 8756 Royster Ct., Elk Grove, Sacramento, CA 95624-3073, which is asserted to be defendant's residence. See ECF No. 7. On the last attempt, February 16, 2016 at 7:20 p.m., plaintiff asserts that he personally served the process on a person at defendant's residence who identified herself as defendant's wife. Id. The following day, plaintiff mailed the process to defendant's residence, according to the Proof of Service. Id.

When defendant failed to respond to the complaint, plaintiff requested that the Clerk of the Court enter a default under Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 55(a). ECF No. 8. The recitations of the Proof of Service having shown proper service on defendant under Rule 4(a)(1) and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(b), the Clerk of the Court granted the default. ECF No. 9. On September 13, 2016, the court granted plaintiff's Rule 55(b) motion for default judgment against defendant, and entered judgment. ECF Nos. 17, 18.

II. JUDGMENT DEBTOR EXAMINATION

On November 23, 2016, the undersigned ordered defendant to appear for a Judgment Debtor Examination on January 18, 2017. ECF No. 23. Defendant appeared and was sworn, but objected to the proceedings and requested a hearing before the undersigned. See ECF Nos. 25, 26. At the hearing, defendant indicated that the only document he ever received in the case, other than the complaint, was the order to appear for the examination. He indicated that he did not know about the default proceedings, and argued that it was unfair to require him to proceed with the examination under these circumstances.

The undersigned explained to defendant that he was free to file a motion under "Rule 60" of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to obtain relief from the default judgment. He was advised that it would be best to obtain help from an attorney in filing such a motion, if possible. Defendant has indicated a willingness to file such a motion, and plaintiff has offered no objection to a continuance to permit defendant to do so.

The court advised the parties that they were free to meet and confer in an attempt to resolve this matter. The court also directed plaintiff's counsel to provide defendant with a copy of the Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 13), the undersigned's Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 16), and the court's order granting default judgment (ECF No. 17).

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: