Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01613/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01613-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The plaintiff initiated this action on October 25, 2016. (Doc. 1) Near in time to initiating this 

case, she filed 32 other cases, all of which made the exact same allegations. The only substantive 

difference between the 33 matters was the name of the defendant. As a result, the Court related each 

of these 33 cases.

1

(Doc. 5 in lead case 1:16-cv-01406 AWI JLT) 

In the lead case, on October 26, 2016, the Court issued an order to the plaintiff to show cause 

why the matters should not be dismissed based upon what appeared to be a lack of standing. (Doc. 5 

in lead case 1:16-cv-01406 AWI JLT) The Court stayed the actions in all respects except for the 

plaintiff’s obligation to respond to the OSC. (Doc. 8 in lead case 1:16-cv-01406 AWI JLT) When the 

plaintiff’s counsel indicated he was having great personal difficulty—due to a medical condition

suffered by his spouse—the Court granted the plaintiff’s request for a 14 day extension of time to 

 

1 Based this case was filed last and after the other matters were already related, the Court issued an order relating this case 

to the lead case on November 7, 2016. (Doc. 4)

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SKIVSHAKTI HOSPITALITY, INC., dba 

Holiday Inn Express Merced,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1613 LJO JLT

ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO 

DECEMBER 5, 2016 FOR THE PLAINTIFF TO 

RESPOND TO THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

(DOC. 6) AND PROVIDE THE OTHER 

INFORMATION REQUIRED (DOC. 9)

Case 1:16-cv-01613-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 11/29/16 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

respond to the OSC. (Docs. 7, 9 in lead case 1:16-cv-01406 AWI JLT) This required that the plaintiff 

to respond by November 23, 2016. (Doc. 9 in lead case 1:16-cv-01406 AWI JLT) Rather than doing 

so, and despite the lack of time on counsel’s part to respond to the OSC due to his wife’s condition, 

the plaintiff has settled or dismissed 32 of the 33 cases. 

However, it appears that the plaintiff may have not appreciated that the OSC was issued in this 

case as well given the fact that it was related later. Thus, to avoid any confusion, the Court ORDERS:

1. The plaintiff SHALL respond to the Order to Show Cause issued in the lead case (Doc. 

5 in lead case 1:16-cv-01406 AWI JLT) and provide the additional information required by the Court

in its order dated October 28, 2016 (Doc. 9 in lead case 1:16-cv-01406 AWI JLT) no later than 

December 5, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01613-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 11/29/16 Page 2 of 2