Chapman v. Taylor et al
Filing
25
ORDER DENYING 23 MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/26/2018.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2018)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7
BYRON CHAPMAN,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 18-cv-00903-BLF
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
v.
GERALD BRIAN TAYLOR, et al.,
[Re: ECF 23]
Defendants.
12
13
Before the Court is Defendant Dhirajlal Panchal’s motion for an order to show cause to
14
Plaintiff Byron Chapman why he has standing and/or his ADA claim is not moot. See ECF 23.
15
The Court finds that a motion for an order to show cause is not the proper vehicle for seeking the
16
redress Defendant seeks here. Instead, Defendant must file a motion for summary judgment or a
17
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This result is not contrary to Judge
18
LaPorte’s decision in Castillo-Antonio v. Heshma, No. 15-cv-2102, ECF 44 (Feb. 22, 2016), as the
19
parties there stipulated that all alleged barriers had been remedied. Here, Plaintiff has not so
20
stipulated, and so the Court cannot know whether this fact is in dispute. Accordingly, the motion
21
for order to show cause is DENIED without prejudice to Defendant filing a motion for summary
22
judgment or motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. If Defendant wishes also to
23
stay the deadlines in this case, he must file a motion seeking such relief.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
27
28
Dated: September 26, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
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?