Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06852/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06852-6/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

THERESA BROOKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIHH LP,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-06852-SI 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

Re: Dkt. No. 28

On April 29, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for administrative relief, requesting the Court 

extend the deadline for the parties to complete the joint site inspection that was originally ordered

to be completed by February 2, 2020. Dkt. No. 28; see also Dkt. No. 4 (Scheduling Order). 

Plaintiff’s two page motion gives no explanation why the joint site inspection was not completed on 

February 2. Rather, the motion states the “ground for the Motion relate to the Coronavirus and the 

Stay-at-Home Orders.” Dkt. No. 28. Plaintiff’s explanation is unpersuasive, because California’s 

stay-at-home order was not issued until March 19, 2020. See https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/03/19/

governor-gavin-newsom-issues-stay-at-home-order/. Further, defendant raises valid points in its 

opposition, arguing a joint site inspection is not necessary as plaintiff has never actually been to the 

hotel’s physical location, rather, she has only visited the website. Dkt. No. 29. 

On this record, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion for administrative relief. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2020

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-06852-SI Document 30 Filed 05/11/20 Page 1 of 1