Brooke

Brooke v. Peterson

Good Law
185 F. Supp. 3d 1203·2016 WL 2851440
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMay 13, 2016Case Nos. SACV 16-0435 AG (DFMx), SACV 16-0618 AG (DFMx), SACV 16-0665 AG (KESx), SACV 16-0738 AG (AGRx)California5,032 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Guilford, J.

Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER DISMISSING CASES FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

1. Initial Impressions

Plaintiff Theresa Brooke has filed several cases in this district — over ninety by the Court’s last count — alleging that hotels in the Orange County area are violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by not having pool lifts in their pools or Jacuzzi tubs. Some of those cases, captioned above, were assigned to this Court. Congress passed the ADA “to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (b)(2). “Its passage was premised on Congress’s finding that discrimination against the disabled is ‘most often the product, not of invidious animus, but rather of thoughtlessness and indifference,’ of ‘benign neglect,’ and of ‘apathetic attitudes rather than affirmative animus.’ ” Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 944 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 295-96 , 105 S.Ct. 712 , 83 L.Ed.2d 661 (1985)). This Court is not apathetic to ADA cases. Indeed, as a matter of course, it holds early scheduling conferences in ADA cases to reduce…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.