Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01642/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01642-2/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 06cv1642

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN WITH

DISABILITIES ADVOCATING ACCESS,

SUING ON BEHALF OF DELORES

JACKSON AND ITS MEMBERS; and

DELORES JACKSON, An individual,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 06cv1642 BTM (RBB)

ORDER RE:

DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR: (1) AN ORDER

CONTINUING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR A PRE-FILING

ORDER; AND (2) AN ORDER

GRANTING DEFENDANTS LEAVE

TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION [Doc. #34]

and

PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO STRIKE

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY [Doc. #33]

vs.

LORI JOHNSON d.b.a. LORI’S

FRAMES, FIBERS AND FRILLS;

THOMAS KNIGHT d.b.a. MIKE’S

ALPINE BARBER SHOP; DONALD

WALCOTT d.b.a. ALPINE FRONTIER

GALLERY; VICTORIA VILLAGE PLAZA,

LLC (COMPANY/CORPORATION);

and DOES 1-10, Inclusive,

Defendants.

On February 21, 2007, Defendants filed a motion for a pre-filing order deeming

Plaintiff Jackson a vexatious litigant and prohibiting her from filing any new litigation without

leave of the Court. The motion was originally scheduled for hearing on March 23, 2007, but

was subsequently continued to April 6 at the request of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs timely filed their

opposition to Defendants’ motion on March 23 and Defendants’ filed a late reply on April 2.

Case 3:06-cv-01642-BTM-RBB Document 35 Filed 04/05/07 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 06cv1642

On April 3, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to strike Defendants’ reply as

untimely. That same day, Defendants filed an ex parte application to continue the hearing

date on their motion in order to allow time for them to file a supplemental declaration, which

they allege is directly relevant to the Court’s determination of Defendants’ motion. They also

requested that an order issue granting them leave to file the supplemental declaration.

Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court finds good cause shown

for continuing the hearing on Defendants’ motion. Accordingly, Defendants’ ex parte

application is hereby GRANTED. The hearing on Defendants’ pending motion [Doc. #14] is

continued to May 4, 2007 at 11:00am. Defendants are granted leave to file a supplemental

declaration in support of their motion on or before April 13, 2007. If Plaintiffs wish, they may

file a supplemental response by April 27, 2007.

Plaintiffs are correct that Defendants’ previously filed reply brief was untimely.

However, the Court finds that the delay in filing was minimal (one business day) and that,

with the one month continuance in the hearing date, there will be no prejudice in allowing the

reply to be considered. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to strike is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 5, 2007

Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01642-BTM-RBB Document 35 Filed 04/05/07 Page 2 of 2