Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-05189/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-05189-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL LOVE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NAJIB M. BATSHON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:18-cv-05189-KAW 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' 

REQUEST TO BE RELIEVED FROM 

MEDIATION REQUIREMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 18

On March 4, 2019, Defendants filed an administrative motion to be relieved from General 

Order 56’s mediation requirement on the grounds that they were “contemplating” certain remedial 

actions that may moot this lawsuit. (Defs.’ Mot., Dkt. No. 18 at 3.) 

On March 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a declaration in opposition of the motion, wherein 

counsel reiterated that Plaintiff is entitled to mediation as a matter of right under General Order 

56. (Dkt. No. 22.) The Court agrees. 

As an initial matter, Defendants are merely contemplating removing certain, identified 

barriers. There is no indication that they have done so, nor that these were the only barriers 

identified at the site inspection. 

Furthermore, even if Defendants actually removed the barriers, only Plaintiff’s claim for 

injunctive relief would be potentially mooted, and, to successfully do so on summary judgment, 

Defendants would have the formidable burden of persuading the undersigned that the alleged 

barriers would not reasonably be expected to recur. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw 

Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 190 (2000); see also Crandall v. Starbucks Corp., 249 F. 

Supp. 3d 1087, 1108 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (denying summary judgment on mootness grounds where 

the barriers could easily recur). Given the nature of the barriers and the potential remediation—

Case 4:18-cv-05189-KAW Document 24 Filed 04/24/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

e.g. making the inaccessible bathroom “employees only” and implementing exclusive valet 

parking in lieu of having an accessible parking stall— it is unlikely that Defendants could satisfy 

their burden.

Additionally, Plaintiff may still be entitled to statutory damages for any visits under state 

law; counsel would be entitled to attorneys’ fees; and other barriers encountered at the site visit 

would also be subject to removal if their removal was readily achievable. See West v. Sec'y of 

Dep't of Transp., 206 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2000) (Even in an absence of potential injunctive 

relief, a case is not mooted so long as any effective relief remains available.)

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is DENIED. The parties are ordered to contact the ADR 

Unit regarding the status of their mediation referral within 7 days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:18-cv-05189-KAW Document 24 Filed 04/24/19 Page 2 of 2