Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00828/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00828-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

18cv828-LAB (BLM)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE VELEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MANDARIN HOUSE OF LA 

JOLLA, INC., et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv828-LAB (BLM)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF 

TO INVESTIGATE 

DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF 

OWNERSHIP

Plaintiff Jose Velez, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint bringing claims 

under the Americans with Disabilities Act in connection with a bed and breakfast 

in La Jolla, and alleging that Defendant The Bed & Breakfast Inn at La Jolla, LP 

(“B&B”) owns the property. 

B&B filed an answer denying that it owns the property, and stating that it is 

no longer an active business entity. The answer states that B&B has not owned 

the property since 1995, when the property was foreclosed on, and that as of 2004 

it ceased to be an active business entity. The answer stated that Mary Louise 

Micuda is the property’s current owner. Plaintiff has not amended the complaint to 

add her as a Defendant. The other Defendant, Mandarin House of La Jolla, Inc., 

has not answered or otherwise appeared. 

Case 3:18-cv-00828-LAB-BLM Document 6 Filed 06/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv828-LAB (BLM)

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

If B&B’s contentions are true, the Court cannot grant injunctive relief against 

B&B and Plaintiff’s ADA claim is moot as to B&B. The Court is required to raise 

the issue of mootness sua sponte. See Schutza v. Zulkoski, 2014 WL 5092875 at 

*1 (S.D. Cal., Oct. 9, 2014) (citing cases). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) requires that a party make an inquiry into factual 

allegations that is reasonable under the circumstances before presenting a 

pleading to the Court, and before continuing to advocate it. In light of B&B’s 

denials, a reasonable inquiry would involve Velez’s investigation of B&B’s 

statements to see whether he in good faith can continue to allege that he is suing 

the right party. 

Plaintiff is ORDERED to investigate B&B’s representations and confirm 

whether he believes B&B is capable of complying with an injunction that would 

require it to make changes to the property, and whether it owned or controlled the 

property at the time he visited it. Only after doing so should he continue to 

prosecute claims against B&B, and only if he can do so consistently with Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 11.1

 Otherwise he should seek dismissal of B&B, by joint motion if possible, 

and by ex parte motion if necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2018

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

 

1 The Court is not requiring Plaintiff at this time to document his investigation, but 

he should be prepared to do so if he continues to litigate claims against B&B.

Case 3:18-cv-00828-LAB-BLM Document 6 Filed 06/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2