Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02867/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02867-0/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRIS LANGER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv2867-GPB(JLB)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS

PREMATURE

[Dkt. No. 25.]

vs.

MINH HANH THI HO, an individual

and representative capacity as trustee;

JOHN HO, in his individual and

representative capacity as trustee;

LIEM HOLSTON; and DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment and for

the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 25.) Plaintiff filed an

opposition on July 9, 2014. (Dkt. No. 40.) A reply was filed by Defendants on July

22, 2014. (Dkt. No. 41.) 

Plaintiff brought a second amended complaint against Defendants for violations

of the Americans with Disabilities Act, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, and 

California Disabled Persons Act. (Dkt. No. 19.) In their motion, Defendants argue

that the injunctive relief claim is now moot since their expert on May 9, 2014 inspected

the subject property and concluded that the facility met or exceeded all applicable

standards for disability accessibility. (Dkt. No. 25-5, Schlottman Decl. at 2:19-26.) 

Therefore, since Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is now moot and there is no

- 1 - [13CV2867-GPC(JLB)]

Case 3:13-cv-02867-GPC-JLB Document 42 Filed 08/01/14 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

continuing federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s state law claims for damages are more

appropriately adjudicated in California state court. 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Court should deny or continue the motion

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 56(d) on the basis that the motion is 1

premature since not only is there a discovery stay, but plaintiff has not yet been able

to inspect the property. In reply, Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff has not been

able to inspect the property and concede that their motion for partial summary

judgment cannot go forward without Plaintiff’s inspection of the property. Therefore,

in the reply, Defendants ask the Court to issue an order “(1) determining the discovery

dispute attached hereto as Exhibit ‘11', and (2) requiring any desired inspection to take

place in no more than 10 days, so that the MPSJ can be adjudicated as close to the

current motion hearing date as possible . . . .” (Dkt. No. 41 at 2.) 

While the parties had agreed to an inspection date of June 25, 2014, it did not

come to fruition. Both parties point the finger at each other as to the reasons why

Plaintiff was unable to inspect the property on June 25, 2014. In their reply, 2

Defendants ask the Court to determine the discovery dispute at issue attached as

Exhibit 11; however, that document references a Joint Motion for Resolution of

DiscoveryDispute filed in another case, 13cv2721-CAB(NLS), with similar issues, but

not filed in this case. 

First, the Court notes that it cannot resolve an issue that wasfiled in another case

Rule 56(d) provides: 1

(d) When Facts Are Unavailable to the Nonmovant. If a nonmovant

shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot

present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may:

(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;

(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery;

or

(3) issue any other appropriate order. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). 

The parties should have contacted the Magistrate Judge for assistance in 2

resolving this discovery dispute. 

- 2 - [13CV2867-GPC(JLB)]

Case 3:13-cv-02867-GPC-JLB Document 42 Filed 08/01/14 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

and not before it. Moreover, the Court notes that on June 20, 2014, Defendants

attempted to bring the matter before the Magistrate Judge by filing a document entitled

“Qualified, Limited Objection to Site Inspection Demand.” However, that document

was struck on discrepancy by Magistrate Judge Burkhardt for failure to comply with

local or chambers rules. (Dkt. No. 39.) Over a month has passed and neither

Defendants nor Plaintiffs have not followed up with the proper procedure in order to

present this discovery issue to the Magistrate Judge prior to the hearing on Defendants’

motion for partial summary judgment. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for partial summary

judgment as PREMATURE. The parties are directed to contact the chambers of

Magistrate Judge Burkhardt to resolve the issue concerning inspection of the property

and any relevant issues. Prior to contacting the Chambers of Magistrate Judge

Burkhardt, the parties are instructed to read Judge Burkhardts’s Civil Chambers Rules

regarding the procedure to present discovery disputes before her. The Court vacates

the hearing set for August 8, 2014. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 1, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - [13CV2867-GPC(JLB)]

Case 3:13-cv-02867-GPC-JLB Document 42 Filed 08/01/14 Page 3 of 3