Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01596/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01596-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Theresa Brooke
Plaintiff
Picadilly Inn Express
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The Court has issued an order to show cause based upon what appears to be a lack of standing 

and subject matter jurisdiction. In the order to show cause, the Court observed that the plaintiff admits

to never having visited any of the locations at issue.

The plaintiff has now sought a 14-day extension of time to respond to the order. In part, she 

reports that her attorney is experiencing hardship caused by a medical imperative suffered by his wife; 

this is grounds for the extension of time. However, in larger part, she claims she needs time to now

visit each of the locations in order to establish standing. In doing so, impliedly, the plaintiff admits that 

the claims she made in her complaints—that she intended to visit each of the defendants’ locations due 

to “several upcoming planned visits”—was untrue. Thus, this basis is improper and does not support 

the request for the extension of time. Rather her planned tactic when coupled with her earlier 

allegations appears to run afoul of Rule 11(b)(3) [“By presenting to the court a pleading, written 

motion, or other paper--whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it--an attorney or 

THERESA BROOKE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PICADILLY INN EXPRESS,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-1596-DAD- JLT

Case 1:16-cv-01596-DAD-JLT Document 9 Filed 10/31/16 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

unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed 

after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances . . . the factual contentions have evidentiary support 

or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for 

further investigation or discovery.”] Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The request for the extension of time to November 23, 2016 is GRANTED;

2. Regardless of whether the plaintiff files amended complaints, plaintiff1and her counsel 

SHALL show cause also why sanctions should not be imposed for making false allegations in the 

complaints;

3. Regardless of whether the plaintiff files an amended complaint, plaintiff SHALL file 

points and authorities that demonstrates that she has stated a claim given the current posture of the 

case—where she had not visited the sites at issue at the time she filed her complaints but then, in an 

attempt to establish standing, purposefully visited the sites despite her “actual knowledge” that they 

failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff SHALL either explain how her earlier allegations were made in error or she SHALL 

provide evidence to demonstrate that she, indeed, had “upcoming planned visits” to the areas where 

the hotels are located and given these trips, where she stayed or intends to stay instead.

Case 1:16-cv-01596-DAD-JLT Document 9 Filed 10/31/16 Page 2 of 2