Johnson v. JKLM Properties, L.L.C.
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-01078
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Johnson v. JKLM Properties, Judge Davila granted JKLM’s motion to proceed with a standing challenge despite General Order 56’s litigation stay.
Scott Johnson and JKLM Properties, LLC. The order lifted the procedural restriction for JKLM and allowed it to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings; it did not resolve the underlying dispute.
What happened
In Johnson v. JKLM Properties, LLC, JKLM asked to be released from General Order 56, which pauses most case activity while the parties follow a process for addressing alleged disability-access violations. Scott Johnson opposed the request.
JKLM said the court might not have authority to hear the case because Johnson allegedly lacked standing. It asked for permission to file a motion asking the court to decide the case based on the existing pleadings.
Judge Edward J. Davila granted JKLM’s administrative motion and allowed it to file the requested motion. The order did not decide whether Johnson had standing or whether the alleged violations occurred.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. JKLM Properties, L.L.C. · No. 5:20-cv-01078
- Edward Davila
- June 16, 2020
Background
The court considered JKLM Properties, LLC’s administrative motion for relief from General Order 56. That general order requires parties in certain Americans with Disabilities Act cases to follow a structured process intended to encourage early compliance and reduce adversarial litigation and related fees. It automatically stays most litigation proceedings, while allowing a party to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 unless the assigned judge orders otherwise.
Arguments
JKLM argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal power to hear the case—because Scott Johnson allegedly lacked standing, meaning a sufficient connection to the claimed injury to invoke the court’s authority. JKLM requested permission to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide a case based on the pleadings already filed. Johnson opposed the administrative motion.
Ruling
The court stated that the standing issue should be resolved as soon as possible in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency. It granted JKLM’s administrative motion for relief from General Order 56 and allowed JKLM to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court did not decide the standing issue, subject-matter jurisdiction, or the merits of the underlying case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.