Brooke v. AJU Hotel Silicon Valley LLC, 19-cv-00411-SVK. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20190903c48
Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 30, 2019
Summary: ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM CONDUCTING AN UNAUTHORIZED SITE INSPECTION OF THE DEFENDANT'S HOTEL Re: Dkt. No. 38 SUSAN VAN KEULEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Defendant's ex parte motion for an order prohibiting Plaintiff Theresa Brooke from attempting to inspect or stay at Defendant's hotel that is the subject of this action pending further order of the Court. ECF 38. The order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant's
Summary: ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM CONDUCTING AN UNAUTHORIZED SITE INSPECTION OF THE DEFENDANT'S HOTEL Re: Dkt. No. 38 SUSAN VAN KEULEN , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Defendant's ex parte motion for an order prohibiting Plaintiff Theresa Brooke from attempting to inspect or stay at Defendant's hotel that is the subject of this action pending further order of the Court. ECF 38. The order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant's m..
More
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR AN ORDER PRECLUDING PLAINTIFF FROM CONDUCTING AN UNAUTHORIZED SITE INSPECTION OF THE DEFENDANT'S HOTEL Re: Dkt. No. 38
SUSAN VAN KEULEN, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant's ex parte motion for an order prohibiting Plaintiff Theresa Brooke from attempting to inspect or stay at Defendant's hotel that is the subject of this action pending further order of the Court. ECF 38. The order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and, in the alternative, 12(b)(6) was argued on August 27, 2019 and has been taken under submission. Pending the Court's order on Defendant's motion to dismiss, discovery in this action is STAYED by order of the Court, including, without limitation, inspection under Rule 34 and/or General Order 56.
Defendant has cited no authority in Rule 34, General Order 56, or elsewhere in the Federal Rules or the Americans with Disabilities Act that gives this Court authority to prohibit a plaintiff's visit to a commercial property which also happens to be the subject of litigation. Therefore, Defendant's request for an order prohibiting Plaintiff's visit to the property is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
