Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04004/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04004-24/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE CELANO, RICHARD

THESING, and WILLIAM HEFFERON on

behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs, No. C 05-4004 PJH

v. ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a

Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiffs’ administrative motion objecting to defendant’s recently

filed motion for summary judgment, and requesting that the court either (1) require

defendant to file a new summary judgment motion; or (2) continue the hearing date on

defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment, in order to allow sufficient time for

discovery. Plaintiffs object to defendant’s motion on grounds that it encompasses factual

issues, and therefore fails to comply with the court’s express ruling allowing defendant to

file one “early motion for summary judgment on purely legal issues.” Defendant, for its

part, has not opposed plaintiffs’ motion. 

As plaintiffs point out, the court held a case management conference in this case on

May 10, 2007. At that conference, the court scheduled a dispositive motion hearing

deadline of December 12, 2007. Upon defendant’s request, however, the court expressly

granted defendant leave to file an early motion for summary judgment on August 1, 2007,

provided that the motion be limited to “purely legal issues.” 

Defendant does not appear to have complied with that instruction. While the

summary judgment motion filed on August 1 does address purely legal issues, it also

Case 4:05-cv-04004-PJH Document 199 Filed 08/13/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

addresses factual issues, the resolution of which is dependent upon the completion of

discovery. Indeed, defendant’s motion is nearly identical to the two summary judgment

motions that defendant attempted to file on December 1, 2006 and April 25, 2007. In

rejecting these prior attempts, the court specifically noted that there appeared to be

disputed facts on what defendant contends is purely a question of law – namely,

surrounding the issue of defendant’s subsequent purchase of single rider cars and

implementation of a reasonable accommodation policy. 

Having now filed substantially the same brief for a third time, defendant cannot be

surprised that the court has again arrived at the same conclusion here as it did previously. 

In short, the court finds that defendant’s motion addresses factual issues as well as legal

issues, and accordingly contravenes this court’s explicit instructions that an early summary

judgment motion would be permitted only insofar as it addressed purely legal issues. 

Moreover, given defendant’s repeated attempts to file what is essentially the same

dispositive motion, it appears to the court that defendant really has need of only one

dispositive motion in order to address both the legal and factual issues at the heart of its

case. Accordingly, as of the date of this order, defendant shall be allowed to file only one

dispositive motion, as originally contemplated in the court’s pretrial schedule, and in

accordance with the pretrial dates set forth at the May 10, 2007 case management

conference.

In sum, plaintiffs’ administrative motion is GRANTED. The court hereby VACATES

the September 5, 2007 hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The motion

will be denied without prejudice unless defendant withdraws it within one week. Defendant

may re-file the same motion or another after the discovery cutoff date with a noticed

hearing date of December 12, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-04004-PJH Document 199 Filed 08/13/07 Page 2 of 2