Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-04429/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-04429-1/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 DENYING DEFENDANT'S 

REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE AND SANCTIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 18

On January 4, 2019, defendant 162 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, LLC filed an “Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s Response to Court’s Order to Show Cause; and Request for Court to Su[a] Sponte 

Order Plaintiff to Show Cause Why He Has Standing and the Court Has Subject Matter 

Jurisdiction; Request for Sanctions.” Dkt. No. 18. For the following reasons, the Court denies the 

various requests for relief made in that submission.

First, to the extent defendant’s submission constitutes an objection to plaintiff Scott 

Johnson’s characterization of the parties’ efforts (or lack thereof) to timely comply with General 

Order 56’s joint site inspection requirement, that objection is noted. While the Court does not 

condone inaccurate representations, particularly those implying the other party is to blame, the 

Court reminds the parties that the site inspection requirement is a joint obligation. General Order 

56 ¶ 3 (“No later than 105 days after filing the complaint, the parties and their counsel . . . shall 

meet in person at the subject premises. . . . They shall jointly inspect the portions of the subject 

premises . . . .”) (emphasis added). It is not solely plaintiff’s obligation to arrange for the 

inspection. The Court expects both parties to fulfill their General Order 56 obligations, including, 

for example, the exchange of initial disclosures described in paragraph 2 of General Order 56.

Case 5:18-cv-04429-VKD Document 19 Filed 01/04/19 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

Second, to the extent defendant requests that the Court dismiss this action for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction, that request is procedurally improper. General Order 56 provides that a 

party may move for administrative relief from the provisions of General Order 56. See id. ¶ 9. 

Any motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be filed as a noticed motion in 

compliance with the Civil Local Rules of this Court.

Third, to the extent defendant seeks an order sanctioning plaintiff, that request is likewise

procedurally improper. Defendant’s submission does not comply with Civil Local Rule 7-8, 

which describes the form and timing of any motion for sanctions. 

This order is without prejudice to defendant filing properly noticed motions in compliance 

with this Court’s Civil Local Rules and General Orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-04429-VKD Document 19 Filed 01/04/19 Page 2 of 2