Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-04429/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-04429-4/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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

162 LOS GATOS-SARATOGA ROAD, 

LLC,

Defendant.

Case No.18-cv-04429-VKD 

ORDER RE PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

Re: Dkt. Nos. 27, 28

On March 28, 2019, the Court ordered the parties to complete the joint site inspection by 

April 12, 2019, and further ordered plaintiff Scott Johnson to file a notice of need for mediation 

within three weeks after the site inspection. Dkt. No. 26. On April 4, 2019, Mr. Johnson filed an 

administrative motion seeking an extension of the April 12 site inspection deadline or, in the 

alternative, to forego the inspection and refer the case to mediation. Dkt. No. 27. On April 5, 

2019, defendant 162 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, LLC (“162 Los Gatos”) filed a motion for 

administrative relief from the joint site inspection and mediation required under General Order 56, 

arguing that Mr. Johnson lacks standing and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this 

action because the business previously located at the premises at issue is no longer operating. Dkt. 

No. 28.

162 Los Gatos previously attempted to raise the issue of standing and subject matter 

jurisdiction on January 4, 2019 in a brief submitted in opposition to Mr. Johnson’s response to the 

Court’s December 24, 2018 order to show cause. Dkt. No. 18. The Court denied the various 

requests for relief made in that brief without prejudice because, among other reasons, 162 Los 

Gatos’s request that the Court dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was 

Case 5:18-cv-04429-VKD Document 29 Filed 04/08/19 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

procedurally improper and did not comply with this Court’s Civil Local Rules. Dkt. No. 19 at 2. 

In its April 5, 2019 submission, 162 Los Gatos does not explain its four-month delay in seeking 

administrative relief from the requirements of General Order 56, other than to say that it was 

“unable to seek this relief earlier due to Defendant’s counsel trying to voluntarily settle the case” 

and because its attorney was ill. Dkt. No. 28 ¶ 8.

162 Los Gatos’s request is untimely, and no good cause justifies its delay. A defendant in 

a suit alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act may not simply refuse to engage in 

the General Order 56 process simply because it believes the case should be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. However, 162 Los Gatos correctly observes that the Court has an independent 

obligation to ensure that it possesses subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12(h)(3); Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011). Accordingly, the 

Court VACATES the deadlines for the joint site inspection and notice of need for mediation. 

Mr. Johnson may file a brief responding to 162 Los Gatos’s arguments regarding standing 

and subject matter jurisdiction no later than April 22, 2019. 162 Los Gatos may file a brief in 

reply no later than April 29, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-04429-VKD Document 29 Filed 04/08/19 Page 2 of 2