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)

Download PDF
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?