Gray v. County of Kern, 1:14-cv-00204-LJO-JLT. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180514646
Visitors: 19
Filed: May 11, 2018
Latest Update: May 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER STRIKING CERTAIN ARGUMENTS PRESENTED IN DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . This case concerns claims brought under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and related federal and state statutes regarding alleged "architectural barriers" Plaintiff Arthur Gray encountered at Kern Medical Center ("KMC"). Id. Before the is Plaintiff's ex parte application for an order
Summary: ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER STRIKING CERTAIN ARGUMENTS PRESENTED IN DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . This case concerns claims brought under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and related federal and state statutes regarding alleged "architectural barriers" Plaintiff Arthur Gray encountered at Kern Medical Center ("KMC"). Id. Before the is Plaintiff's ex parte application for an order s..
More
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER STRIKING CERTAIN ARGUMENTS PRESENTED IN DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.
This case concerns claims brought under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and related federal and state statutes regarding alleged "architectural barriers" Plaintiff Arthur Gray encountered at Kern Medical Center ("KMC"). Id. Before the is Plaintiff's ex parte application for an order striking certain arguments presented in Defendant Kern County's motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 68. Defendant filed a response. ECF No. 70.
In its March 26, 2018 order authorizing supplemental briefing, the Court only explicitly invited briefing on the mootness of Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief pertaining to the slopes of the external ramps at KMC. ECF No. 61. However, barring a deadline precluding further dispositive motions practice, a party may move for summary judgment "at any time." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Here, the stipulation between the parties did not preclude raising additional issues and the Court believes addressing these fairly straightforward matters on summary judgment may aid judicial and party efficiency.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's ex parte application for an order striking additional arguments in Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
