Brooke v. Picadilly Inn University, No. 1:2016cv01594 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 6 14-Day Extension of Time to Respond to Order to Show Cause, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/28/2016. Show Cause Response due by 11/23/2016. (Hall, S)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER GRANTING 14-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE H&K PARTNERSHIP, a California partnership dba Best Economy Inn & Suites, 15 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1406-AWI-JLT Defendant. ____________________________________ 16 17 THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, 18 19 20 21 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1407-LJO-JLT v. C & S CHONG INVESTMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation dba La Quinta Inn Bakersfield North, 22 Defendant. ____________________________________ 23 THERESA BROOKE, 24 25 26 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1408-DAD-JLT Plaintiff, v. 27 JDS HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, a California limited liability company dba Days Inn Bakersfield, 28 Defendant. 1 1 THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, 2 3 4 5 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1409-AWI-JLT v. JHP HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., a California corporation dba Ramada Limited Bakersfield North, Defendant. 6 7 ____________________________________ 8 THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 12 13 14 v. D.P.R.L. INVESTMENTS, LLC, a California limited liability company dba Hotel Rosedale, Defendant. ____________________________________ THERESA BROOKE, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1411-DAD-JLT Plaintiff, v. KOO JIN HYUN & CHU MYUNG HEE, trustees of the KOO JIN HYUN & CHU MYUNG HEE TRUST dba Hampton Inn & Suites Bakersfield North-Airport, Defendants. ____________________________________ THERESA BROOKE, 22 23 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1410-LJO-JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1414- LJO-JLT Plaintiff, v. PRIME HOSPITALITY SERVICES, LLC, a California limited liability company dba Hampton Inn & Suites Bakersfield/Hwy 58, Defendant. 27 28 2 1 THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, 2 3 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1415-LJO-JLT v. 5 RP GOLDEN STATE MGT, LLC, a California limited liability company dba Garden Suites Inn, 6 Defendant. 4 7 ____________________________________ 8 THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 v. KPK, INC., a California corporation dba Travelodge Turlock, 12 13 14 Defendant. ____________________________________ THERESA BROOKE, 15 16 17 18 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1449-LJO -JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1454-DAD-JLT Plaintiff, v. LILJENQUIST MODESTO COMPANY, LLC, a California limited liability company dba Modesto Hotel, 19 Defendant. 20 21 ____________________________________ 22 THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, 23 24 25 26 27 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1455- DAD-JLT v. METRO HOSPITALITY SERVICES, INC., a California corporation dba Hampton Inn Fresno NW, Defendant. 28 3 1 THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, 2 3 4 5 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1456-LJO-JLT v. JAYESHKUMAR PATEL, an individual; PRAFULBHAI PATEL, an individual, both individuals dba Budget Inn Modesto, Defendants. 6 7 ____________________________________ 8 THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1465-AWI-JLT v. KHATRI BROTHERS, L.P., a California limited partnership dba Clarion Modesto, 12 Defendant. 13 14 ____________________________________ 15 THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, 16 17 18 19 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1499-AWI- JLT v. A&A TARZANA PLAZA, LP, a California limited partnership dba Hilton Garden Inn Clovis, Defendant. 20 21 ____________________________________ 22 THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1503-DAD- JLT v. THANDI ENTERPRISES, LLC, a California limited liability company dba Holiday Inn Express Fresno, Defendant. ____________________________________ 4 1 THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, 2 3 4 5 6 v. FRESNO AIRPORT HOTELS, LLC, a California limited liability company dba Ramada Fresno Airport, Defendant. ____________________________________ 7 8 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1508-LJO- JLT THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 12 13 14 v. KAINTH BROTHERS, INC., a California corporation dba Country Inn Suites Fresno North, Defendant. ____________________________________ THERESA BROOKE, 15 16 17 18 21 v. SHIV HOTELS, LLC, a California limited liability company dba Hampton Inn Fresno, Defendant. ____________________________________ THERESA BROOKE, 22 23 24 25 26 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1509-LJO- JLT Plaintiff, 19 20 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1506-DAD- JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1510-LJO- JLT Plaintiff, v. SHIVKRUPA INVESTMENTS, INC., a California corporation dba La Quinta Inn Suites Fresno, Defendant. 27 28 5 1 THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, 2 3 4 v. SHRIGI, INC., a California corporation dba Welcome Inn Fresno, 5 6 7 Defendant. ____________________________________ THERESA BROOKE, 8 9 10 11 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1511-LJO- JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1520-LJO- JLT Plaintiff, v. THE DAE SUNG & HEE JAE CHA TRUST dba Quality Inn Tulare, Defendant. 12 13 14 THERESA BROOKE, 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff, v. HANFORD INVESTORS, INC., a California corporation dba Comfort Inn Hanford, 19 20 21 Defendant. ____________________________________ THERESA BROOKE, 22 23 24 25 26 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1521-AWI- JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1522-LJO- JLT Plaintiff, v. INTERLINK PROPERTIES L.P., a California limited partnership dba Hampton Inn Visalia, Defendant. 27 28 6 1 THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, 2 3 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1529-DAD- JLT v. 5 NMA HOSPITALITY LLC, a California limited liability company dba La Quinta Tulare, 6 Defendant. 4 7 ____________________________________ 8 THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 12 13 14 v. TERRA INVESTMENTS I, LLC, a California limited liability company dba Charter Inn Suites, Defendant. ____________________________________ THERESA BROOKE, 15 16 17 18 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1530-DAD- JLT Case No.: 1:16-cv-1594-AWI- JLT Plaintiff, v. PICADILLY INN UNIVERSITY, dba University Square Hotel, Defendant. 19 20 ____________________________________ 21 THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, 22 23 24 25 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1595-DAD- JLT v. DAYS INN OF FRESNO PARTNERSHIP, dba Days Inn Fresno Central, Defendant. 26 27 28 7 1 THERESA BROOKE, Plaintiff, 2 v. 3 4 Case No.: 1:16-cv-1596-DAD- JLT PICADILLY INN EXPRESS, Defendant. 5 6 7 The Court has issued an order to show cause based upon what appears to be a lack of standing 8 9 10 and subject matter jurisdiction. In the order to show cause, the Court observed that the plaintiff admits to never having visited any of the locations at issue. The plaintiff has now sought a 14-day extension of time to respond to the order. In part, she 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 reports that her attorney is experiencing hardship caused by a medical imperative suffered by his wife; this is grounds for the extension of time. However, in larger part, she claims she needs time to now visit each of the locations in order to establish standing. In doing so, impliedly, the plaintiff admits that the claims she made in her complaints—that she intended to visit each of the defendants’ locations due to “several upcoming planned visits”—was untrue. Thus, basis is improper and does not support the request for the extension of time. Rather her planned tactic when coupled with her earlier allegations appears to run afoul of Rule 11(b)(3) [“By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper--whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it--an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances . . . the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.”] Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. 25 26 27 28 The request for the extension of time to November 23, 2016 is GRANTED; 2. 24 Regardless of whether the plaintiff files amended complaints, plaintiff1 and her counsel SHALL show cause also why sanctions should not be imposed for making false allegations in the 1 Plaintiff SHALL either explain how her earlier allegations were made in error or she SHALL provide evidence to demonstrate that she, indeed, had “upcoming planned visits” to the areas where the hotels are located and given these trips, where she stayed or intends to stay instead. 8 1 2 complaints; 3. Regardless of whether the plaintiff files amended complaints, plaintiff SHALL file 3 points and authorities that demonstrates that she has stated a claim given the current posture of the 4 case—where she had not visited the sites at issue at the time she filed her complaints but then, in an 5 attempt to establish standing, purposefully visited the sites despite her “actual knowledge” that they 6 failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 7 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 28, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.