Garcia v. Gomez
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:22-cv-00919
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Garcia v. Gomez, Judge Hamilton granted defendants’ requests to move the dismissal hearing and hold an evidentiary hearing on Garcia’s standing for disability-related injunctive relief.
Orlando Garcia and the defendants, including Esther Gomez. Garcia was ordered to appear at the evidentiary hearing, and the motion-to-dismiss hearing was continued.
What happened
In Garcia v. Gomez, defendants asked to move the hearing on their motion to dismiss. The court found the request procedurally defective but granted it because defense counsel had trial obligations and good cause existed.
The court also granted defendants’ request for an evidentiary hearing about whether Orlando Garcia has standing to seek an injunction under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The hearing will examine issues including the distance from Garcia’s residence, his past visits, the firmness of his plans to return, and how often he travels near the business. Garcia was ordered to appear.
The court continued the dismissal hearing to a future date and scheduled the evidentiary hearing for July 7, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. by Zoom. After that hearing, the court will decide whether more briefing or a hearing on the motion to dismiss is needed. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton issued the order.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. Gomez · No. 4:22-cv-00919
- Phyllis Hamilton
- June 1, 2022
Background
Defendants requested that the court continue, or reschedule, the hearing on their motion to dismiss. The court stated that the request was procedurally defective because it should have been filed as a motion for administrative relief under Civil Local Rule 7-11 and submitted farther in advance. Despite that defect, the court granted the request because defense counsel had trial obligations and good cause existed.
Standing Issue
Defendants’ motion to dismiss presents a factual challenge to Orlando Garcia’s standing to seek injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff have a sufficient personal connection to the dispute and the requested remedy. Defendants raised factual questions about Garcia’s likelihood of returning to the defendants’ place of public accommodation and requested an evidentiary hearing limited to standing.
Ruling and Next Steps
The court granted the request for an evidentiary hearing. The hearing was scheduled for July 7, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. by Zoom, and Garcia was ordered to appear. The court stated that it would consider the proximity of the business to Garcia’s residence, Garcia’s past patronage, the definitiveness of his plans to return, and the frequency of his travel near the business. The court continued the motion-to-dismiss hearing to a future date and will determine after the evidentiary hearing whether additional briefing or a further hearing on the motion to dismiss is necessary. The order did not decide the standing issue or the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.