Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01660/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01660-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

1 05cv1660-BTM (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAURIZIO ANTONINETTI,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 05cv1660-BTM (WMc)

ORDER RE EX PARTE

v. APPLICATION

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., et

al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff moves ex parte for an order (1) staying the motion for summary judgment

scheduled to be heard on June 10, 2011 and (2) allowing Plaintiff to file a reply brief on this

motion. Plaintiff’s reply brief was due on May 13, 2011 – four days after Plaintiff’s death.

Contrary to Defendants’ position, there is no evidence that Plaintiff’s counsel declined to seek

a continuance on the reply brief for the strategic purpose of “waiting to start the Rule 25

clock.” (Opp. at 2) Plaintiff’s motion to substitute was made on May 20, 2011, the same day

as the suggestion of death – well-within the 90 days required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a). The

Court does not find Plaintiff’s delay in filing the instant application to be unreasonable or

prejudicial to Defendants.

Defendants also argue that “there is no need for a reply brief because case law

indicates that the federal ADA claim is moot and that the remaining state law damages clams

should be dismissed.” (Opp. at 3) In support of this position, Defendants cite to two cases

where the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims

Case 3:05-cv-01660-BTM-WMC Document 343 Filed 06/03/11 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

27

28

2 05cv1660-BTM (WMc)

after the death of a plaintiff in an ADA action. See Barria v. B.E., LLC, 09cv2777-DMS

(BLM), 2010 WL 2485721 (S.D. Cal. June 16, 2010); Barria v. Yu, 08-cv908-BEN (CAB),

2010 WL 2653322 (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2010). However, unlike these cases cited by

Defendants, the instant action is in its late stages – a complaint was filed in August 2005, a

bench trial was held before Judge Jones in late 2007, and the Ninth Circuit reversed in part

and vacated in part the district court judgment in late 2010. Under these circumstances, if

the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s death renders the federal claim moot, the Court will

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims. See Destfino v. Reiswig,

630 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2011).

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED. The reply brief attached to the

instant application may be filed after the Court decides Plaintiff’s motion to substitute. If the

Court grants this motion, the Court will likely ask the parties for supplemental briefing on how

Plaintiff’s death impacts the issues raised in the motion for summary judgment. At that time,

the Court will provide a new hearing date. Until then, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

is stayed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 3, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01660-BTM-WMC Document 343 Filed 06/03/11 Page 2 of 2