Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07627/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07627-0/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THERESA BROOKE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

144 KING STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 19-cv-07627-JSC 

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE 

RELIEF PURSUANT TO CIVIL 

LOCAL RULE 7-11 

Plaintiff’s administrative motion in this ADA case seeks an order vacating the joint site 

inspection scheduled for June 2, 2020 because “Defendant’s hotel may be shutting down 

permanently,” presumably because of the COVID-19 pandemic. (See No. 19 at 1 (“Plaintiff is 

sympathetic to all businesses who have suffered in California. At this time, however, Defendant’s 

counsel cannot tell Plaintiff’s counsel one way or the other if the hotel will reopen or not.”).) 

Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s request because the restrictions associated with COVID-19 are 

“beginning to subside” and Defendant hopes that its hotel will be operational “as business in the 

area begins to resume.” (Dkt. No. 20 at 1.) 

On June 4, 2020, Chief Judge Phyllis Hamilton approved the following procedures 

applicable to ADA Access cases subject to General Order 56: 

In any case subject to General Order 56 involving a physical site, the deadlines for 

conducting a joint site inspection and settlement meeting are deemed tolled from 

March 25, 2020 until June 4, 2020. For a physical site that is closed on or after June 4, 

2020, these deadlines are deemed tolled until the site is again open to the public. 

The ADR Program will refer a case for mediation if the required Form GO 56-Notice of 

Need for Mediation and Certification of Counsel (amended June 4, 2020) certifies 

(a) that all required participants attended the joint site inspection and the settlement 

meeting required by General Order 56 either 

Case 3:19-cv-07627-JSC Document 21 Filed 06/05/20 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 Californi

a

(i) by videoconference, or 

(ii) in person, so long as all participants agreed and gathering in person was 

permitted by applicable state and local laws; and 

(b) that the parties have completed the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(a)(1) and have complied with General Order 56, paragraph 4. 

Neither the joint site inspection nor the settlement meeting may be conducted by 

telephone or email. The parties may by agreement elect to replace the joint site 

inspection with another process that enables them to obtain and exchange the 

information needed to prepare effectively to evaluate the case for resolution at the 

settlement meeting. If the parties elect to replace the joint site inspection with another 

process, they must attach to the Notice of Need for Mediation and Certification of 

Counsel a joint letter describing the terms of the parties’ agreement and confirming that 

all requirements of the agreement have been satisfied. 

Any request for relief from these procedures must comply with General Order 56, 

paragraph 3, and, for the convenience of the assigned judge, must attach to the 

stipulation or administrative motion a copy of this Second Amended Notice. 

https://cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/court-programs/adr/Second-Amended-Notice-reProcedures-in-Cases-Referred-to-ENE-or-Mediation-and-re-Procedures-in-Cases-Subject-toGeneral-Order-56-060320.pdf. 

 Thus, the amended procedures contemplate that absent the parties’ agreement, joint site 

inspections will not occur so long as the defendant business is closed, as is the case here. This 

procedure makes sense because the need for injunctive relief is generally not urgent while a 

business is closed and, indeed, may become moot if the business does not reopen. If the ADA 

claim for injunctive relief becomes moot, then the case should proceed in state court on the state 

law damages claim. As Plaintiff’s administrative motion does not identify any special 

circumstances that would warrant relief from GO 56 as temporarily amended on June 4, 2020, the 

motion is DENIED. 

This Order disposes of Docket No. 19. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 5, 2020 

 

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-07627-JSC Document 21 Filed 06/05/20 Page 2 of 2