Garcia v. Maciel

Background

Defendants Jesus Garcia Maciel, Monique Renee Ramos, Guadalupe Murillo, and Rigoberto Murillo sought administrative relief from Northern District of California General Order 56. They wanted to conduct discovery into whether Plaintiff Orlando Garcia had Article III standing to seek injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act. They also asked the court to stay the required site inspection until after the standing issue was resolved. Garcia opposed the request.

General Order 56 generally stays discovery and motion practice in ADA cases, subject to limited exceptions and court orders. It also requires a joint site inspection and a later settlement meeting. The order does not stay motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), including a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). The court explained that factual challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction require competent proof, so allowing limited discovery about Article III standing was consistent with General Order 56 and within the court’s discretion.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected the idea that Garcia’s status as an ADA tester inherently discredited his stated intent to return to the establishment. It noted that ADA-tester status does not itself eliminate standing and can support the plausibility of an intent to return. At the same time, Garcia’s significant geographic separation from the establishment created a legitimate question about whether he genuinely intended to return, and defendants were entitled to test the credibility of his assertions through limited discovery.

The court found no reason to stay the other requirements of General Order 56, including the site inspection. Defendants had not shown why they could not comply with the rest of the order while conducting standing discovery or why doing so would impair the speed and efficiency of the litigation. The court also stated that the possibility that the case might later be dismissed for lack of standing did not outweigh the risk of slowing the proceedings and the possibility that some steps would later prove unnecessary.

Disposition

The court granted in part defendants’ request for relief from the General Order 56 stay, allowing limited discovery on the standing issue. It denied the motion in all other respects, including the request to stay the site inspection. The parties were ordered to meet and confer about a schedule for defendants to take Garcia’s deposition, for defendants to file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if warranted after discovery, and for a possible Zoom evidentiary hearing including Garcia’s testimony. Judge Joseph C. Spero required the parties to file an agreed schedule, or separate proposals if they could not agree, by September 21, 2021.