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

N.D. California

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

District Court, N.D. California·Decided June 16, 2020·No. 5:20-cv-01078·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 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. 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 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. 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

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

Pincite

Johnson v. JKLM Properties, L.L.C. (Johnson v. JKLM Properties, L.L.C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.