Brooke v. A&A Tarzana Plaza, L.P.
Filing
9
ORDER GRANTING 7 14-Day Extension of Time to Respond to Order to Show Cause, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/28/2016. Show Cause Response due by 11/23/2016. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER GRANTING 14-DAY EXTENSION OF
TIME TO RESPOND TO ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE
H&K PARTNERSHIP, a California
partnership dba Best Economy Inn & Suites,
15
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1406-AWI-JLT
Defendant.
____________________________________
16
17
THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,
18
19
20
21
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1407-LJO-JLT
v.
C & S CHONG INVESTMENT
CORPORATION, a California corporation
dba La Quinta Inn Bakersfield North,
22
Defendant.
____________________________________
23
THERESA BROOKE,
24
25
26
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1408-DAD-JLT
Plaintiff,
v.
27
JDS HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, a
California limited liability company dba
Days Inn Bakersfield,
28
Defendant.
1
1
THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,
2
3
4
5
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1409-AWI-JLT
v.
JHP HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., a
California corporation dba Ramada Limited
Bakersfield North,
Defendant.
6
7
____________________________________
8
THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
12
13
14
v.
D.P.R.L. INVESTMENTS, LLC, a
California limited liability company dba
Hotel Rosedale,
Defendant.
____________________________________
THERESA BROOKE,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1411-DAD-JLT
Plaintiff,
v.
KOO JIN HYUN & CHU MYUNG HEE,
trustees of the KOO JIN HYUN & CHU
MYUNG HEE TRUST dba Hampton Inn &
Suites Bakersfield North-Airport,
Defendants.
____________________________________
THERESA BROOKE,
22
23
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1410-LJO-JLT
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1414- LJO-JLT
Plaintiff,
v.
PRIME HOSPITALITY SERVICES, LLC, a
California limited liability company dba
Hampton Inn & Suites Bakersfield/Hwy 58,
Defendant.
27
28
2
1
THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,
2
3
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1415-LJO-JLT
v.
5
RP GOLDEN STATE MGT, LLC, a
California limited liability company dba
Garden Suites Inn,
6
Defendant.
4
7
____________________________________
8
THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
v.
KPK, INC., a California corporation dba
Travelodge Turlock,
12
13
14
Defendant.
____________________________________
THERESA BROOKE,
15
16
17
18
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1449-LJO -JLT
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1454-DAD-JLT
Plaintiff,
v.
LILJENQUIST MODESTO COMPANY,
LLC, a California limited liability company
dba Modesto Hotel,
19
Defendant.
20
21
____________________________________
22
THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,
23
24
25
26
27
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1455- DAD-JLT
v.
METRO HOSPITALITY SERVICES, INC.,
a California corporation dba Hampton Inn
Fresno NW,
Defendant.
28
3
1
THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,
2
3
4
5
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1456-LJO-JLT
v.
JAYESHKUMAR PATEL, an individual;
PRAFULBHAI PATEL, an individual, both
individuals dba Budget Inn Modesto,
Defendants.
6
7
____________________________________
8
THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1465-AWI-JLT
v.
KHATRI BROTHERS, L.P., a California
limited partnership dba Clarion Modesto,
12
Defendant.
13
14
____________________________________
15
THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,
16
17
18
19
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1499-AWI- JLT
v.
A&A TARZANA PLAZA, LP, a California
limited partnership dba Hilton Garden Inn
Clovis,
Defendant.
20
21
____________________________________
22
THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1503-DAD- JLT
v.
THANDI ENTERPRISES, LLC, a California
limited liability company dba Holiday Inn
Express Fresno,
Defendant.
____________________________________
4
1
THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,
2
3
4
5
6
v.
FRESNO AIRPORT HOTELS, LLC, a
California limited liability company dba
Ramada Fresno Airport,
Defendant.
____________________________________
7
8
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1508-LJO- JLT
THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
12
13
14
v.
KAINTH BROTHERS, INC., a California
corporation dba Country Inn Suites Fresno
North,
Defendant.
____________________________________
THERESA BROOKE,
15
16
17
18
21
v.
SHIV HOTELS, LLC, a California limited
liability company dba Hampton Inn Fresno,
Defendant.
____________________________________
THERESA BROOKE,
22
23
24
25
26
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1509-LJO- JLT
Plaintiff,
19
20
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1506-DAD- JLT
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1510-LJO- JLT
Plaintiff,
v.
SHIVKRUPA INVESTMENTS, INC., a
California corporation dba La Quinta Inn
Suites Fresno,
Defendant.
27
28
5
1
THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,
2
3
4
v.
SHRIGI, INC., a California corporation dba
Welcome Inn Fresno,
5
6
7
Defendant.
____________________________________
THERESA BROOKE,
8
9
10
11
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1511-LJO- JLT
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1520-LJO- JLT
Plaintiff,
v.
THE DAE SUNG & HEE JAE CHA TRUST
dba Quality Inn Tulare,
Defendant.
12
13
14
THERESA BROOKE,
15
16
17
18
Plaintiff,
v.
HANFORD INVESTORS, INC., a
California corporation dba Comfort Inn
Hanford,
19
20
21
Defendant.
____________________________________
THERESA BROOKE,
22
23
24
25
26
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1521-AWI- JLT
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1522-LJO- JLT
Plaintiff,
v.
INTERLINK PROPERTIES L.P., a
California limited partnership dba Hampton
Inn Visalia,
Defendant.
27
28
6
1
THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,
2
3
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1529-DAD- JLT
v.
5
NMA HOSPITALITY LLC, a California
limited liability company dba La Quinta
Tulare,
6
Defendant.
4
7
____________________________________
8
THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
12
13
14
v.
TERRA INVESTMENTS I, LLC, a
California limited liability company dba
Charter Inn Suites,
Defendant.
____________________________________
THERESA BROOKE,
15
16
17
18
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1530-DAD- JLT
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1594-AWI- JLT
Plaintiff,
v.
PICADILLY INN UNIVERSITY, dba
University Square Hotel,
Defendant.
19
20
____________________________________
21
THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,
22
23
24
25
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1595-DAD- JLT
v.
DAYS INN OF FRESNO PARTNERSHIP,
dba Days Inn Fresno Central,
Defendant.
26
27
28
7
1
THERESA BROOKE,
Plaintiff,
2
v.
3
4
Case No.: 1:16-cv-1596-DAD- JLT
PICADILLY INN EXPRESS,
Defendant.
5
6
7
The Court has issued an order to show cause based upon what appears to be a lack of standing
8
9
10
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
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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, 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 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.
25
26
27
28
The request for the extension of time to November 23, 2016 is GRANTED;
2.
24
Regardless of whether the plaintiff files amended complaints, plaintiff1 and her counsel
SHALL show cause also why sanctions should not be imposed for making false allegations in the
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.
8
1
2
complaints;
3.
Regardless of whether the plaintiff files amended complaints, plaintiff SHALL file
3
points and authorities that demonstrates that she has stated a claim given the current posture of the
4
case—where she had not visited the sites at issue at the time she filed her complaints but then, in an
5
attempt to establish standing, purposefully visited the sites despite her “actual knowledge” that they
6
failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
7
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 28, 2016
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?