Summary
The Central District of California orders the parties to file a joint status report addressing alleged ADA barriers, any remedial measures, and anticipated summary judgment motions. The Court also orders the plaintiff to show cause why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act and other state-law claims, identify the statutory damages sought, and provide declarations concerning high-frequency litigant status. The order warns that failure to respond may result in dismissal of the action or state-law claims.
Holdings
- The court ordered the parties to file a joint status report addressing the defendant's investigation or remediation of the alleged barriers, the plaintiff's position regarding any remedial measures, and whether and when either party intends to move for summary judgment. The court separately ordered the plaintiff to show cause why supplemental jurisdiction should be exercised over the state-law claims and to provide information concerning statutory damages and high-frequency-litigant status.
Questions Presented
- What information must the parties provide concerning investigation or remediation of the alleged ADA barriers and any anticipated summary-judgment motions?
- Why should the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim and any other state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367?
- Whether voluntary removal of alleged ADA barriers, together with an inability reasonably to expect their recurrence, may moot a Title III ADA claim and affect supplemental jurisdiction and attorney-fee entitlement.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (9)
- Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 905, 911 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
- American Cargo Transport, Inc. v. United States, 625 F.3d 1176, 1179 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
- Hillesheim v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc., 953 F.3d 1059, 1062 (8th Cir. 2020)(followed)
- G. v. Fay School, 931 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2019)(followed)
- Brooke v. A-Ventures, LLC, 2017 WL 5624941, at *5 (D. Ariz. Nov. 22, 2017)(followed)
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001)(followed)
- Molski v. Foster Freeze Paso Robles, 267 Fed. App'x 631, 632 (9th Cir. 2008)(followed)
- City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173 (1997)(followed)
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…