Johnson v. Reimal Family Limited Partnership

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 20-cv-01192-WHO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS

10 REIMAL FAMILY LIMITED Re: Dkt. No. 13 PARTNERSHIP, et al., 11 Defendants.

13 Plaintiff Scott Johnson filed this action on February 18, 2020, alleging that defendants 14 Reimal Family Limited Partnership and William Reimal (collectively, “Reimal”) violated the 15 Americans With Disabilities Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act. Dkt. No. 1. On March 30, 2020, 16 Reimal filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, stating that Johnson failed to allege a business 17 establishment, failed to establish standing, and failed to establish that Mr. Reimal is an alter ego of 18 Reimal Family Limited Partnership, among other shortcomings. 1 Dkt. No 13-1. 19 Johnson has failed to respond in accordance with this Court’s Civil Local Rules. “The 20 failure to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss in the manner prescribed by the Court's Local 21 Rules is grounds for dismissal.” Davidson ex rel. Davidson v. Ukiah Valley Med. Ctr., No. C 11- 22 06147 SBA, 2012 WL 1565123, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2012). Reimal’s motion to dismiss is 23 GRANTED and I DISMISS Johnson’s case WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 24 Johnson must file an amended complaint by May 18, 2020, or judgment will be entered in 25

26 27 1 2 favor of Reimal. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: April 30, 2020 5 iam H. Orrick 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 ll a 12

14 © 15 16

il

Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28