Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00948/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00948-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC FKA 

GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-00948 GEB KJN PS

v.

NICOLETTE BRUCE, MARK A. 

BRUCE, and DOES 1 through 10, 

inclusive, 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Defendants, who removed this case to federal court, are proceeding without

counsel. The court is in receipt of defendants’ request to appear via telephone at the following

court proceedings: (1) the hearing on plaintiff’s motion for a remand to state court, which is

presently set for August 12, 2010; and (2) the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference, which is

presently set for September 23, 2010. (See Dkt. Nos. 8, 9.) Defendants, who state that they are

unable to travel at all due to their disabilities, seek these accommodations pursuant to an

unspecified provision of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). They also

seek an order permitting them to appear at all future court proceedings via telephone. (Id.) 

Although the court makes no finding regarding whether defendants are entitled to

Case 2:10-cv-00948-GEB-KJN Document 10 Filed 07/27/10 Page 1 of 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

 The undersigned notes that Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of 1

a disability by a “public entity.” See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132. In relevant part, Title II of the ADA

further defines “public entity” as “any State or local government,” not the federal government or

a federal court. See id.§ 12131(1). Although it appears that defendants’ reliance on Title II of

the ADA appears to be misplaced, the undersigned need not ultimately resolve defendants’ claim

in this order.

2

appear by telephone pursuant to Title II of the ADA, the court will grant defendants’ requests to 1

appear by telephone at the two court proceedings specified in defendants’ requests. However,

without more of a showing or explanation regarding why it is “impossible” for both defendants to

travel due to each defendant being disabled, the court will not grant defendants’ request to appear

at all future court proceedings by telephone. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ requests to appear via telephone at court proceedings (Dkt.

Nos. 8, 9) are granted in part.

2. Defendants may appear via telephone at: (1) the hearing on plaintiff’s

motion for a remand to state court, which is presently set for August 12, 2010; and (2) the Status

(Pretrial Scheduling) Conference, which is presently set for September 23, 2010.

3. Defendants’ request for an order permitting them to appear at all future

court proceedings by telephone is denied without prejudice. Defendants may file requests to

appear telephonically at future hearings and court proceedings on a hearing-by-hearing basis. 

DATED: July 26, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-00948-GEB-KJN Document 10 Filed 07/27/10 Page 2 of 2