Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01990/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01990-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

18cv1990-LAB (MDD)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREL SPIKES,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUHAM SAEED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv1990-LAB (MDD)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF 

TO INVESTIGATE 

DEFENDANT’S DENIALS

Plaintiff Karel Spikes filed a Complaint bringing claims under the Americans 

with Disabilities Act in connection with Duke’s Liquor, a retail liquor and grocery 

store, and alleging that the conditions of the store violate various provisions of the 

ADA, particularly the ADA’s parking requirements. 

Defendants Saeed and Sako, the owners of the property, have filed an 

Answer disputing many of Plaintiff’s claims. Among other issues they identify, 

Defendants note that Duke’s has no accessible parking spaces because Duke’s 

maintains no parking spaces at all—only “a narrow alley allows customers to 

access the premises.” [Dkt. 3 at 4]. This parking arrangement, or lack thereof, is 

consistent with the San Diego Planning Department’s guidance. They further 

assert that the building was built in 1965 and thus does not fall under the 

requirements of the ADA. 

Case 3:18-cv-01990-LAB-MDD Document 5 Filed 09/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv1990-LAB (MDD)

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

If Defendants’ contentions are true, the Court may be unable to grant 

injunctive relief against Defendants, rendering Plaintiff’s ADA claim moot. The 

Court is required to raise the issue of mootness sua sponte. See Schutza v. 

Zulkoski, 2014 WL 5092875 at *1 (S.D. Cal., Oct. 9, 2014) (citing cases). The 

terms of the 2004 settlement between these parties in Case No. 03cv1869 may 

also render the Court unable to grant the relief requested here.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) requires that a party make an inquiry into factual 

allegations that is reasonable under the circumstances before presenting a 

pleading to the Court, and before continuing to advocate it. In light of Defendants’

denials, a reasonable inquiry would involve Spikes’s investigation of Defendants’

statements to see whether he in good faith can maintain a cognizable claim under 

the ADA. 

Plaintiff is ORDERED to investigate Defendants’ representations and 

confirm whether he believes Defendants’ business is subject to, and violates, the 

ADA’s requirements. Plaintiff should also revisit the terms of the 2004 settlement 

to ensure the present litigation does not violate that agreement. Only after doing 

so should he continue to prosecute these claims, and only if he can do so 

consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.1 Otherwise he should seek dismissal, by joint 

motion if possible, and by ex parte motion if necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2018

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

 

1 The Court is not requiring Plaintiff at this time to document his investigation, but 

he should be prepared to do so if he continues to litigate claims.

Case 3:18-cv-01990-LAB-MDD Document 5 Filed 09/18/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2