Langer v. Cooke City Raceway, Inc., No. 1:2021cv01488 - Document 34 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 31 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER DENYING 23 Motion for Default Judgment; this matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/12/2022. (Martin-Gill, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRIS LANGER, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:21-cv-01488-JLT-BAK Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND COOKE CITY RACEWAY, INC., (Docs. 23, 25, 31) Defendant. 16 17 Chris Langer filed this action against Cooke City Raceway, Inc., alleging violations of the 18 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.; and California’s Unruh Civil 19 Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51, et seq. (Doc. 1.) 20 On May 20, 2022, and May 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment, and a 21 corrected notice of filing. (Docs. 23, 25; see also Doc. 31 at 2 n.2.) The assigned magistrate 22 judge issued findings and recommendations that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be denied 23 with leave to amend, or alternative granted with a reduction in attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 31.) 24 Plaintiff filed objections soon after. (Doc. 33.) 25 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de 26 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including the filed objections, 27 the Court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 28 analysis. As the findings and recommendations explain, Plaintiff’s claims are premised upon 1 1 “difficulty and discomfort” he allegedly experienced in attempting to view videos on Defendant’s 2 website, which allegedly deterred Plaintiff from further use of the website. (See Doc. 31 at 4.) 3 The Court agrees with the magistrate judge that Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged the required 4 nexus between Defendant’s website and the goods and services provided at Defendant’s physical 5 location. (See id. at 14–17.) Plaintiff asks in the objections that that if the Court is inclined to 6 deny the motion, it be without prejudice to Plaintiff offering further testimony regarding the 7 nexus between the website and the physical business. Adopting the reasons explained in the 8 findings and recommendations, the Court finds it more appropriate to grant Plaintiff leave to file 9 an amended complaint to address the deficiencies identified in the complaint. Thus, 10 1. The findings and recommendations issued July 27, 2022 (Doc. 31) are ADOPTED 11 IN FULL. 12 2. The motion for default judgment (Doc. 22) is DENIED. 13 3. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within 21 days of entry of 14 this order. 15 4. This matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. 16 5. Plaintiff is directed to mail a copy of this order to Defendant at its last known 17 address. 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 12, 2022 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
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.
