Johnson v. JKLM Properties, L.L.C.

N.D. California

Johnson v. JKLM Properties, L.L.C.

DecidedJune 16, 2020

Docket5:20-cv-01078

StatusUnknown

This text of Johnson v. JKLM Properties, L.L.C. (Johnson v. JKLM Properties, L.L.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. JKLM Properties, L.L.C., (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 SCOTT JOHNSON, 8 Case No. 5:20-cv-01078-EJD Plaintiff, 9 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ Vv. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR 10 RELIEF FROM GENERAL ORDER 56 JKLM PROPERTIES, LLC, et al., 1] Re: Dkt. No. 15 Defendants.

13 Before the Court is Defendant JKLM Properties, LLC’s administrative motion for relief

14 || from General Order No. 56. See Defendant’s Motion for Administrative Relief from General © 3 15 Order 56 (“Mot.”), Dkt. 15. Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s administrative motion. See Opposition, 16 || MFAR (“Opp,”), Dkt. 16.

17 General Order 56 requires the parties “to engage in a structured process designed to

18 || achieve early compliance with the ADA while minimizing the adversarial litigation process and 19 || concomitant fees.” Cullen v. Netfix, Inc.,2011 WL 13177618, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2011) 20 || (quotation marks and citation omitted). The general order imposes an automatic stay on litigation 21 proceedings and only allows a party to file a Rule 12(b) motion, unless the assigned judge orders 22 || otherwise. See N.D. Cal. General Order No. 56. 23 The Court respects the process established by General Order 56 to facilitate and expedite 24 || the cure of ADA violations. However, Defendant argues that this Court lacks subject-matter 25 || jurisdiction over the case and requests leave to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings based 26 || onthe alleged lack of standing. See Mot. at 3. The threshold issue of standing should be resolved 27 Case No.: 5:20-cv-01078-EJD 28 || ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM GENERAL ORDER 56

1 as soon as possible. Thus, in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency. the Court GRANTS 2 || Defendant’s administrative motion for relief from General Order 56. Defendant may file a motion 3 || for judgment on the pleadings. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: June 16, 2020 6 EDWARD J. DAVILA 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 1]

2B

15 16

(«17

2 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Case No.: 5:20-cv-01078-EJD 28 || ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM GENERAL ORDER 56

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 SCOTT JOHNSON, 8 Case No. 5:20-cv-01078-EJD Plaintiff, 9 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ Vv. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR 10 RELIEF FROM GENERAL ORDER 56 JKLM PROPERTIES, LLC, et al., 1] Re: Dkt. No. 15 Defendants.

13 Before the Court is Defendant JKLM Properties, LLC’s administrative motion for relief

14 || from General Order No. 56. See Defendant’s Motion for Administrative Relief from General © 3 15 Order 56 (“Mot.”), Dkt. 15. Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s administrative motion. See Opposition, 16 || MFAR (“Opp,”), Dkt. 16.

17 General Order 56 requires the parties “to engage in a structured process designed to

18 || achieve early compliance with the ADA while minimizing the adversarial litigation process and 19 || concomitant fees.” Cullen v. Netfix, Inc.,2011 WL 13177618, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2011) 20 || (quotation marks and citation omitted). The general order imposes an automatic stay on litigation 21 proceedings and only allows a party to file a Rule 12(b) motion, unless the assigned judge orders 22 || otherwise. See N.D. Cal. General Order No. 56. 23 The Court respects the process established by General Order 56 to facilitate and expedite 24 || the cure of ADA violations. However, Defendant argues that this Court lacks subject-matter 25 || jurisdiction over the case and requests leave to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings based 26 || onthe alleged lack of standing. See Mot. at 3. The threshold issue of standing should be resolved 27 Case No.: 5:20-cv-01078-EJD 28 || ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM GENERAL ORDER 56

1 as soon as possible. Thus, in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency. the Court GRANTS 2 || Defendant’s administrative motion for relief from General Order 56. Defendant may file a motion 3 || for judgment on the pleadings. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: June 16, 2020 6 EDWARD J. DAVILA 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 1]

2B

15 16

(«17

2 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Case No.: 5:20-cv-01078-EJD 28 || ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM GENERAL ORDER 56

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Johnson v. JKLM Properties, L.L.C., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-jklm-properties-llc-cand-2020.