Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02102/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02102-0/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

JOSE DANIEL CASTILLO-ANTONIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUSHDEY O. HESHMA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02102-EDL 

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION 

FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 20

On November 20, 2015, Defendants filed this motion for an order to show cause as to why 

subject matter jurisdiction exists over Plaintiff’s Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 

U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., claim based on their representation that they had cured all violations, 

and/or done what was ‘readily achievable.’ Plaintiff opposed on the ground that Defendants’ 

photographs and declaration did not conclusively establish that they had cured all the previously 

identified violations, such as a mop sink in the bathroom which Plaintiff contends impedes 

maneuverability. “‘[W]here a statute provides the basis for both the subject matter jurisdiction of 

the federal court and the plaintiff's substantive claim for relief,’” as is the case here, the “‘question 

of jurisdiction and the merits of an action are intertwined.’” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 

F.3d 1035, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Timberland Lumber Co. v. Bank of Am., 549 F.2d 

597, 602 (9th Cir. 1976)); Johnson v. Hernandez, 69 F. Supp. 3d 1030, 1034 (E.D. Cal. 2014). “In 

such a case, the district court assumes the truth of allegations in a complaint . . . unless 

controverted by undisputed facts in the record. . . . Dismissal is then appropriate where it appears 

beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his [or her] claim which 

would entitle him [or her] to relief.” Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987). 

For the reasons stated at the hearing, Defendants’ motion is denied as the Court is unable 

to determine on the record before it that Plaintiff cannot state an ADA claim. Even if Plaintiff 

Case 3:15-cv-02102-EDL Document 33 Filed 01/13/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

may only be able to state a claim for ongoing ADA violations that were not alleged in the 

complaint, he does not necessarily lack standing. See Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 

1043-44 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[W]here a disabled person has Article III standing to bring a claim for

injunctive relief under the ADA because of at least one alleged statutory violation of which he or 

she has knowledge and which deters access to, or full use and enjoyment of, a place of public 

accommodation, he or she may conduct discovery to determine what, if any, other barriers 

affecting his or her disability existed at the time he or she brought the claim. This list of barriers 

would then in total constitute the factual underpinnings of a single legal injury . . . yielding Article 

III standing.”).

Additionally, as stated at the hearing, the Parties were ordered to meet and confer on 

scheduling Plaintiff’s follow-up site inspection, which will be at Plaintiff’s expense and need not 

be a joint inspection, in the very near future. Once they have agreed on a date, and by no later 

than January 20, 2016, the Parties shall file a brief statement indicating when the inspection will 

occur. Within five business days of the completion of that inspection, the Parties are ordered to

promptly file a joint update of no more than five pages indicating the Parties’ respective positions 

on whether all ADA violations have been remedied and whether a further case management 

conference is necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

January 13, 2016

Case 3:15-cv-02102-EDL Document 33 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 2