Barajas v. Ashford TRS Walnut Creek LLC
- Charles Breyer
- 3:20-cv-01676
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Barajas v. Ashford, Judge Breyer denied Ashford’s motion to dismiss the original complaint as moot after Barajas amended it.
Kathleen Barajas and Ashford TRS Walnut Creek LLC; the order concerns Ashford’s motion to dismiss Barajas’s original complaint.
What happened
In Barajas v. Ashford TRS Walnut Creek LLC, Kathleen Barajas sued Ashford and other unnamed defendants under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Act.
Ashford moved to dismiss the original complaint, arguing that Barajas lacked the required federal standing and had not stated a claim for relief. Barajas then filed an amended complaint.
Because the amended complaint replaced the original one, Judge Charles R. Breyer denied Ashford’s motion to dismiss the original complaint as moot. The order did not decide the standing or claim-sufficiency arguments.
The detailed version
- Barajas v. Ashford TRS Walnut Creek LLC · No. 3:20-cv-01676
- Charles Breyer
- Apr. 8, 2021
Background
Kathleen Barajas sued Ashford TRS Walnut Creek LLC and unnamed defendants for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Act.
Motion and ruling
Ashford moved to dismiss the case for lack of Article III standing—the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff have a sufficient connection to the alleged injury—and for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. Before the court ruled on that motion, Barajas filed an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
Judge Charles R. Breyer denied Ashford’s motion to dismiss the original complaint as moot because the amended complaint had replaced it. The order did not resolve whether Barajas had standing or whether her claims were legally sufficient.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.