Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00061/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00061-1/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

SCOTT JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN CARLOS INN,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-00061-SK 

ORDER REQUIRING FURTHER 

BRIEFING AND CONTINUNG 

HEARING

Regarding Docket No. 22

Defendant San Carlos Inn, L.P. (“Defendant”) moves for judgment on the pleadings on the 

grounds that (1) Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is moot because all alleged barriers have 

either been remedied or do not exist, and (2) Plaintiff lacks standing. Plaintiff makes several

procedural arguments in response to Defendant’s motion and fails to address these factual issues

in any way. 

First, Plaintiff argues that this motion was filed in violation of the stay on all proceedings 

pursuant to General Order 56. General Order 56 states in relevant part: “All other discovery and 

proceedings are STAYED unless the assigned judge orders otherwise.” Several judges in this 

District have rejected similar arguments regarding the scope of General Order 56, finding that 

“General Order 56 does not stay all proceedings in an ADA case, but instead stays only discovery 

and similar proceedings” in ADA access cases. Johnson v. Winchester Campbell Properties, LLC, 

2018 WL 6619940, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018) (citing cases); see also Moralez v. Whole 

Foods Market, Inc., 897 F. Supp. 2d 987, 993 n. 2 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (holding that General Order 

56’s stay “plainly refers to discovery issues, and does not bar a defendant from moving to dismiss 

on res judicata grounds”); Che v. San Jose/Evergreen Cmty. College District Found., et al., No. 

17-381 BLF, Dkt. No. 34 at 2 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2017) (“Upon further review of General Order 

Case 3:19-cv-00061-SK Document 29 Filed 11/14/19 Page 1 of 4
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

56, the Court concludes that the language imposing a stay on ‘[a]ll other discovery and 

proceedings’ does not clearly encompass the filing of an answer or motion in response to a 

complaint.”). This Court agrees and finds that General Order 56 does not bar Defendant from 

challenging Plaintiff’s standing or subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are under a duty to 

raise and decide issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time it appears subject 

matter jurisdiction may be lacking. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12; Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 

1077 (9th Cir. 1983). If the Court determines that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court 

must dismiss the case. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Alternatively, to the extent the stay under 

General Order 56 applies to Defendant’s motion, the Court, in its discretion grants relief from the 

stay to consider this motion. See General Order 56, ¶ 9. 

Second, Plaintiff argues that the Court may not consider evidence outside of the pleadings 

without converting the motion to one for summary judgment. However, the Court may look 

beyond the pleadings and consider extrinsic evidence on a motion for judgment on the pleadings 

when a party challenges subject-matter jurisdiction. United States v. In re Seizure of One Blue 

Nissan Skyline Auto., & One Red Nissan Skyline, 683 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1089 (C.D. Cal. 2010); 

Maya v. Centx Corp., 658 F.3d 1060, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that in evaluating motion 

to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that plaintiff lacks constitutional 

standing to sue, courts may consider evidence outside the pleadings).

Finally, Plaintiff argues that the Court should treat Defendant’s motion regarding 

“statutory standing” under the standard for failure to state a claim. (Dkt. No. 24 at 3.) However, 

the Ninth Circuit has made clear that while “lack of statutory standing requires dismissal for 

failure to state a claim, lack of Article III standing requires dismissal for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).” Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 

1060, 1067 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis in original). Here, Defendant is challenging Plaintiff’s 

constitutional standing under Article III and Plaintiff has an obligation to demonstrate that he does 

have standing.

Because injunctive relief is the only available remedy under Title III, a plaintiff claiming 

discrimination under Title III “must not only demonstrate the familiar requirements for standing –

Case 3:19-cv-00061-SK Document 29 Filed 11/14/19 Page 2 of 4
3

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

injury-in-fact, traceability, redressability – but also a sufficient likelihood that he [or she] will be 

wronged again in a similar way.” Ervine v. Desert View Reg’l Med. Ctr. Holdings, LLC, 753 F.3d 

862, 867 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation and citation omitted). A plaintiff can show likelihood 

of future injury by demonstrating an intent to return to a noncompliant accommodation or that he 

was deterred from visiting a noncompliant accommodation because he encountered barriers 

related to his disability there. Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 948-50 (9th 

Cir. 2011). “In determining whether a plaintiff’s likelihood of return is sufficient to confer 

standing, courts have examined factors including: (1) the proximity of the business to the 

plaintiff’s residence, (2) the plaintiff’s past patronage of the business, (3) the definitiveness of the 

plaintiff’s plans to return, and (4) the plaintiff’s frequency of travel near the defendant.” Crandall 

v. Starbucks Corp., 249 F. Supp. 3d 1087, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (citation omitted).

Before dismissing this case based on lack of jurisdiction, the Court will provide Plaintiff 

with an opportunity to address Defendant’s arguments on the merits regarding whether any 

barriers to access remain and whether Plaintiff has standing. The Court notes that Plaintiff should 

have some knowledge regarding the status of the barriers based on the joint inspection conducted 

on July 10, 2019. Plaintiff vaguely argues that he has not had an opportunity to conduct a site 

inspection “to assess the claimed new changes.” (Dkt. No. 24 at 5.) However, Defendant does not 

argue that it made changes after the site inspection on July 10, 2019. Nevertheless, if Plaintiff 

contends the parking lot was not compliant with the ADA on July 10, 2019, Plaintiff may inspect 

the parking lot again. Additionally, if Plaintiff elects to submit a declaration to demonstrate 

standing, the Court will permit Defendant to depose Plaintiff for a maximum of two hours on the 

statements in his declaration. 

Plaintiff shall submit a supplemental opposition to address the merits of Defendant’s 

motion by no later than December 12, 2019. The extended period provides time for Plaintiff to 

inspect the parking lot before submitting his supplemental opposition. If Plaintiff files a 

declaration to demonstrate his standing, he shall make himself available to be deposed by no later 

///

///

Case 3:19-cv-00061-SK Document 29 Filed 11/14/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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

than January 6, 2020. Defendants may submit a supplemental reply by no later than January 13, 

2020. The Court HEREBY CONTINUES the hearing on Defendant’s motion to January 27, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2019

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00061-SK Document 29 Filed 11/14/19 Page 4 of 4