Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01638/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01638-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

LARY FEEZOR,

NO. CIV. S-06-1638 WBS DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: 

MOTION TO STRIKE

H.I. MANAGEMENT OF RANCHO

CORDOVA d/b/a HAMPTON INN

RANCHO CORDOVA,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Lary Feezor brought this action against

defendant H.I. Management of Rancho Cordova d/b/a Hampton Inn

Rancho Cordova’s (“Hampton Inn”) under the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., as

well as related California statutes, alleging a violation of his

civil rights. In particular, plaintiff, a paraplegic, contends

that when he visited the Hampton Inn, he encountered physical and

other intangible barriers as a result of his disability that

interfered with and denied his ability to use and enjoy the

facility. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-12.)

Case 2:06-cv-01638-WBS-DAD Document 30 Filed 01/10/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

On September 15, 2006, defendants filed their answer to

the complaint, and on September 29, 2006, this court entered a

Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order. (September 29, 2006 Order.) 

In that order, the court stated that “[n]o further joinder of

parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted except with leave

of court, good cause having been shown under Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(b). See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604

(9th Cir. 1992).” (Id. at 1-2.)

On November 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a first amended

complaint that was, in substance, the same as its original

complaint, but added W2005/Fargo Hotels (Pool B) Realty, L.P.

(“Fargo Hotels”) as a defendant. On November 20, 2006,

defendant filed the instant motion to strike plaintiff’s first

amended complaint, contending that the scheduling order

prohibited amending pleadings after the September 29, 2006, date,

and thus the amended complaint must be stricken, good cause

having not been shown.

“A scheduling order ‘is not a frivolous piece of paper,

idly entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel

without peril.’ [citation omitted] . . . Disregard of the order

would undermine the court’s ability to control its docket,

disrupt the agreed-upon course of the litigation, and reward the

indolent and the cavalier.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610. If a

party fails to obey a pretrial scheduling order, the court may

properly strike a party’s pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f),

37(b)(2)(C). In this case, plaintiff’s amended complaint was

filed in direct contravention of this court’s September 29, 2006,

deadline established by the pretrial scheduling order. Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-01638-WBS-DAD Document 30 Filed 01/10/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

did not petition this court for leave to amend, and such a

blatant disregard of the prior order is improper. Accordingly,

the court will grant defendant’s motion.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s first amended

complaint be, and the same hereby is, STRICKEN.

DATED: January 9, 2007

Case 2:06-cv-01638-WBS-DAD Document 30 Filed 01/10/07 Page 3 of 3