Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

LOFTON v. ENS ASSOCIATES INVESTMENTS, LLC, 5:14-cv-03754 HRL. (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20141104732 Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 03, 2014
Summary: ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR STAY AND EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION CONFERENCE [Re: Dkt. 8] HOWARD R. LLOYD, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff sues under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12181, et seq., alleging that architectural barriers at defendants' restaurant prevented her from enjoying full and equal access at the facility. She also asserts a number of state law claims for relief. Now before the court is defendants motion 1 for a stay and an
More

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR STAY AND EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION CONFERENCE

[Re: Dkt. 8]

HOWARD R. LLOYD, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff sues under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq., alleging that architectural barriers at defendants' restaurant prevented her from enjoying full and equal access at the facility. She also asserts a number of state law claims for relief.

Now before the court is defendants motion1 for a stay and an early evaluation conference pursuant to the California Construction-Related Accessibility Standards Compliance Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 55.51-55.54. Basically, that statute allows a defendant in certain circumstances to seek a stay and an early neutral evaluation. Defendants' motion is denied as moot because this district's General Order No. 56 provides essentially the same relief—it requires the parties to make certain initial disclosures, but otherwise stays all discovery pending a site inspection and early resolution efforts, including, if need be, a mediation to be arranged through the court's ADR program. See General Order No. 56; see also Dkt. 4 Scheduling Order for Cases Asserting Denial of Right of Access Under Americans With Disabilities Act, Title II & III (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-89).

For future reference, defendants are advised that they cannot appear before this court except through an attorney. See Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) ("A corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this Court"); see also Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) ("It has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel"); In Re Highley, 459 F.2d 554, 555 (9th Cir. 1972) ("A corporation can appear in a court proceeding only through an attorney at law"). Should this matter proceed beyond the informal resolution efforts mandated by General Order No. 56 and the court's initial Scheduling Order, defendants may wish to contact the Federal Legal Assistance Self-Help Center (FLASH), located on the second floor of the Federal Courthouse in San Jose, for assistance. Appointments with FLASH may be made by signing up at the Center or by calling 408-297-1480.

SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The motion is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer