Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01471/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01471-0/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

18cv1471-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

JAMES RUTHERFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

ECONOLODGE, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv1471-LAB (JMA)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF 

TO INVESTIGATE FACTUAL 

BASIS FOR CLAIMS

Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss (Docket no. 5) that, among other 

things, represents that the pharmacy’s parking lot is ADA-compliant, that Plaintiff 

in fact never entered the parking lot, and that Plaintiff has no intention to patronize 

the business in the future. Although ordinarily the Court accepts all well-pleaded 

facts as true at this stage, here they implicate jurisdiction. If these representations 

are correct, Plaintiff lacks Article III standing.

Before filing an opposition or otherwise litigating his claims further, Plaintiff 

must investigate and confirm that he went to the correct location, and encountered 

the barriers there that the complaint describes. He must also confirm that he has 

a definite intention to patronize the business in the future. If he has made a mistake 

or his allegations are inaccurate, he should correct them before proceeding further. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3). 

Case 3:18-cv-01471-LAB-LL Document 7 Filed 08/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv1471-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

If after a reasonable investigation, Plaintiff knows the allegations are 

accurate, his opposition to the motion to dismiss should say so. In particular, 

Plaintiff should state what his plans to patronize the motel in the future are. See 

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 564 (1992) (holding that intent to 

return at some indefinite time in the future to a place where injury occurred did not 

support a finding of actual or imminent injury sufficient to show standing). He must 

also identify where he lives.

If appropriate, the Court may require additional briefing, hold a hearing, or 

convert the motion to one for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2018

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01471-LAB-LL Document 7 Filed 08/06/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2