Johnson v. Reimal Family Limited Partnership
- William Orrick
- 3:20-cv-01192
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. Reimal, Judge Orrick dismissed Johnson’s case without prejudice after he failed to oppose dismissal, allowing amendment by May 18, 2020.
Scott Johnson; Reimal Family Limited Partnership and William Reimal
What happened
In Johnson v. Reimal Family Limited Partnership, Scott Johnson alleged that Reimal Family Limited Partnership and William Reimal violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Johnson had not adequately alleged a business establishment, established standing, or shown that William Reimal was the partnership’s alter ego. Johnson did not respond as required by the court’s local rules.
Judge William H. Orrick granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed Johnson’s case without prejudice. The court gave Johnson until May 18, 2020, to file an amended complaint, stating that judgment would otherwise be entered in favor of the defendants.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Reimal Family Limited Partnership · No. 3:20-cv-01192
- William Orrick
- Apr. 30, 2020
Background
Scott Johnson sued Reimal Family Limited Partnership and William Reimal. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Their stated arguments included that Johnson had not alleged a business establishment, had not established standing, and had not established that William Reimal was the partnership’s alter ego.
Court’s ruling
The court stated that Johnson failed to respond to the motion in the manner required by the court’s local rules. It therefore granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Johnson’s case without prejudice. The court ordered Johnson to file an amended complaint by May 18, 2020, or judgment would be entered in favor of the defendants.
The order did not decide whether Johnson’s underlying statutory claims were valid. Because the case was dismissed on a procedural ground under the court’s rules, the classification is procedural.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.