Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01967/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01967-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12188 Americans With Disabilities Act - Civil Enforcement Actions

---

1

18cv1967-LAB (JMA)

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

CHRIS LANGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

HILLCREST FIFTH AVENUE, 

LLC, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv1967-LAB (JMA)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF 

TO INVESTIGATE CLAIMS

Plaintiff filed suit seeking injunctive relief under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA), and supplemental state claims. His claim is based solely on 

allegations that the restaurant he tried to visit has a public parking lot with signage 

showing that it is for the restaurant’s customers. (Compl., & 12.) The complaint 

alleges that the parking lot lacks parking spaces for disabled patrons, and that he 

personally encountered this barrier when he visited. (Id. && 12–13, 15, 17.) The 

complaint alleges that the parking lot at one time had a disabled parking space, 

but they have been allowed to fade, or have been paved over. (Id., & 14.) It also 

alleges that Langer is prepared to return and patronize the restaurant, once the 

parking space is provided. The allegations are specific and definite, and accuse 

Defendants of ignoring these “obvious and blatant” barriers. (Id., & 24.)

Case 3:18-cv-01967-LAB-JMA Document 9 Filed 09/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv1967-LAB (JMA)

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

Defendants filed an answer, representing that the restaurant has no public 

parking lot and offers no public parking spaces. (Answer, && 13, 15.) If this is true, 

Plaintiff’s ADA claims are moot, and the Court cannot exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over his state law claims. 

Langer and his counsel must promptly investigate Defendants’

representations and confirm that the restaurant actually does have a parking lot, 

and that signs indicate that the parking spaces are for the restaurant’s customers. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) (requiring investigation that is reasonable under the 

circumstances). If they find they are in error, they should promptly either move to 

dismiss, or seek leave to amend to show that the Court has jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2018

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01967-LAB-JMA Document 9 Filed 09/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2