The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Percy Anderson, United States District Judge
Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER
Plaintiff Chris Kohler brings this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Defendant Moreno Valley Festival, Ltd. is the owner of property located at 24125 Hemlock Avenue in Moreno Valley, California, which Defendant leases to an Arby's franchisee. Plaintiff alleges that various conditions of the property and restaurant violate provisions of the ADA. Although this case was originally filed in the Eastern Division, it was assigned to this Court pursuant to General Order 98-3.
On August 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion indicates -- for the first time -- that this case may be related to Chris Kohler v. Southland Foods, Inc., et al., EDCV 08-1785 VAP (RZx) ("Kohler I"), in which Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant alleging that the same Arby's restaurant violated the same provisions of the ADA. Counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendant in this case also served as counsel for the parties in Kohler I.
Plaintiff's Civil Cover Sheet states that this case is not related to any previously filed cases. Moreover, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed a Notice of Related Case. Nonetheless, this case involves the same parties and property, and appears to call for determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law, as Kohler I. Thus, it appears that the parties should have designated this case as related to Kohler I and filed a Notice of Related Case as required by Local Rule 83-1.3.
Accordingly, the parties are ordered to show cause in writing why this action is not related to Chris Kohler v. Southland Foods, Inc., et al., EDCV 08-1785 VAP (RZx) within the meaning of Local Rule 83-1.3. The parties' responses shall be filed no later than September 5, 2012. The filing of a Notice of Related Case shall be deemed an adequate response to this order to show cause.
Additionally, counsel are ordered to show cause, in writing, why they should not be sanctioned for failing to file a Notice of Related Case. Counsel's responses shall be filed no later than September 5,
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...