Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04022/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04022-2/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LEON PATTEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LELAND W. HANCOCK, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-04022-JSW 

ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO 

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND OPPOSITION 

BRIEF AND PERMITTING SUR-REPLY 

Re: Docket No. 31 

Defendants have moved to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the 

Court is scheduled to hear the motion on January 22, 2016. 

The state of the docket and the briefing in this case is suboptimal. On October 23, 2015, 

Defendants filed their original motion to dismiss. (Docket No. 14.) Plaintiff’s opposition to that 

motion should have been filed on November 6, 2015. Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition. 

Subsequently, on November 20, 2015, Defendants filed a “Corrected Motion to Dismiss.” 

(Docket No. 16.) On that same day, Plaintiff belatedly, and without leave of court, filed his 

opposition to the motion to dismiss. (Docket No. 17.) Thereafter, on November 23, 2015, filed a 

second “Corrected Motion to Dismiss.” (Docket No. 23.) 

On November 24, 2015, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause to the parties, which it 

discharged on December 7, 2015. (Docket Nos. 24, 28.) In that Order, the Court stated that it 

would treat the second corrected motion to dismiss as the operative motion. Although not 

expressed in that Order, the Court’s ruling was premised on Defendants’ response to the Order to 

Show Cause, which demonstrated that the changes made to the motion were not substantive. 

Accordingly, the Court directed Defendants to file their reply brief by December 18, 2015, and 

rescheduled the hearing for January 22, 2016. 

Case 4:15-cv-04022-JSW Document 32 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

file

De

opp

hav

dec

arg

tha

3, l

add

the

a tw

tha

rais

to i

Co

Da

On Dec

ed a second o

efendants hav

position and

ve the oppor

Plaintif

clarations fil

gument. (Sec

an repeat arg

lines 6-26. 

Howev

ditional para

ey were not a

wo paragrap

If Defen

an January 1

sed at page 2

in their reply

With th

ourt, the Cou

IT IS S

ated: January

cember 18, 2

opposition to

ve now obje

d not conside

rtunity to rep

ff’s second o

led on Novem

cond Oppos

guments, albe

er, if Defend

agraphs, whi

able to respo

h sur-reply. 

ndants wish 

1, 2016, acc

2, lines 17-2

y brief. 

he exception

urt shall no

SO ORDER

y 5, 2016 

2015, Defend

o the motion

cted to that f

er it, and they

ply to the arg

opposition in

mber 20, 20

ition at 2:17

eit in differe

dants in good

ch are comp

ond to in thei

 

to file a surompanied by

26, of Plainti

n of the pos

ot accept any

RED. 

2

dants filed th

n to dismiss, 

filing, and th

y argue that 

guments rais

ncorporates b

15. It also in

7-26.) As the

ent words, ra

d faith can d

prised of eigh

ir reply brief

-reply, they 

y a statemen

ff’s second o

sible sur-re

y further br

heir reply. H

without see

hey ask that 

they would 

ed in the sec

by reference 

ncludes thre

e Court read

aised in Plain

demonstrate 

ht lines of ar

f, the Court s

shall submit

nt that specif

opposition, D

eply, and un

riefs in conn

__

JE

Un

However, on

eking leave o

the Court str

be prejudice

cond opposit

the oppositi

ee additional 

ds those para

ntiff’s first o

to the Court

rgument, con

shall permit 

t their propo

fically states

Defendants w

nless specific

nection with

___________

EFFREY S. W

nited States D

n that same d

of court to do

rike the seco

ed, because t

tion. 

ion brief and

 paragraphs 

agraphs, they

opposition br

t that those th

ntain inform

them the op

osed sur-repl

 which of th

were unable

cally ordere

h the motion

__________

WHITE 

District Judg

date, Plaintif

o so. 

ond

they did not 

d

of 

y do no more

rief at page 

hree 

mation that 

pportunity to

y by no later

he arguments

 to respond 

ed by the 

n to dismiss

____ 

ge 

ff

e

o

r

s

. 

Case 4:15-cv-04022-JSW Document 32 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 2