Langer v. Abrahim et al

Filing 21

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff's Response to Opposition. Notice of dismissal or memorandum of points and authorities, not longer than ten pages, due no later than 2/24/2016. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 2/3/16.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRIS LANGER,

12

CASE NO. 14cv2902-LAB (DHB)
Plaintiff,

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION

vs.
13

AIMEE H. ABRAHIM, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17

Plaintiff Chris Langer filed suit against two Defendants, Aimee H. Abrahim and Maria

18

Magdalene Vazquez, bringing claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA)

19

and supplemental state law claims, based on conditions at the parking lot of La Sinaloense

20

Restaurant. There is currently a motion for default judgment pending against these two

21

Defendants.

22

Vazquez has submitted a letter, which the Court has accepted for filing and construes

23

as her opposition. The letter says Vazquez rents only the restaurant, and the parking lot is

24

owned by the owners of the strip mall where the restaurant is located. It says Vazquez has

25

no authority over the parking lot or ability to change it to bring it into compliance with the

26

ADA. Vazquez’s letter also attaches photographs taken shortly before the complaint was

27

filed, which she says shows parking conditions are ADA-compliant. The photographs are

28

not very clear, but they do contradict the Complaint’s allegation that the only ADA-compliant
-1-

14cv2902

1

parking space has been allowed to fade or has been paved over. (Compl., ¶ 11.) It is

2

possible the parking lot was repainted some time after Langer’s last visit but before the

3

photographs were taken.

4

Injunctive relief is the sole remedy available to private plaintiffs under the ADA.

5

Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 643 F.3d 1165, 1174 (9th Cir. 2010). If, as

6

Vazquez represents, the parking lot is now ADA-compliant, an injunction is unavailable

7

against either Defendant. Furthermore, if Vazquez has no control over the parking lot and

8

no authority to require the strip mall owners to modify the parking lot, an order requiring her

9

to modify it would afford no relief, and would be moot. Because the complaint identifies both

10

Abrahim and Vazquez as owners of the restaurant, and neither of them as an owner of the

11

strip mall, it is possible neither of them have authority to modify the parking lot.

12

Federal courts are required to examine jurisdictional issues, sua sponte if necessary.

13

Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011). If, as it appears may

14

be the case here, injunctive relief is unavailable, the ADA claim against both Defendants is

15

moot. If that is the case, the Court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state

16

law claims. See Herman Family Revocable Trust v. Teddy Bear, 254 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir.

17

2001).

18

Additionally, Vazquez’s letter draws into question the accuracy of two key allegations,

19

namely that the restaurant provides parking spaces to its customers (Compl., ¶ 9) and that

20

the parking spaces are currently ADA-compliant. (Id., ¶ 10.) Langer is therefore ORDERED

21

to investigate and determine whether Vazquez’s representations are accurate, before filing

22

any more documents or making any more arguments to the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

23

11(b)(3).

24

No later than February 24, 2016, Langer must then file either a notice of dismissal,

25

or a memorandum of points and authorities, not longer than ten pages (not counting any

26

lodged or appended material) explaining why the Court has jurisdiction over this case,

27

Vazquez’s representations notwithstanding.

28

///

The memorandum must be supported by a

-2-

14cv2902

1

declaration or affidavit under penalty of perjury explaining what steps Langer took to

2

investigate Vazquez’s representations.

3

As the party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction, Langer bears the burden of establishing

4

it. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Therefore, if Langer does not,

5

within the time permitted and in the manner ordered, show why the Court can exercise

6

jurisdiction over this case, it will be dismissed without prejudice but without leave to amend,

7

for lack of jurisdiction.

8

This order does not suspend briefing on the motion for default judgment; the parties

9

should continue to brief it as provided for under the Civil Local Rules and as ordered by the

10
11
12

Court. (Docket no. 17.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 3, 2016

13
14

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

14cv2902