Gastelum

Gastelum v. Kohl's Department Stores Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 26, 20241:21-cv-01740California1,985 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3

4

5

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 FERNANDO GASTELUM, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-1740 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, STRIKING 13 v. ) CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS AND CLAIMS, ) DISMISSING THE REMAINING CAUSE OF 14 KOHL’S INC., ) ACTION WITHOUT FURTHER LEAVE TO ) AMEND, AND TERMINATING THE PARTIES’ 15 Defendant. ) CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ) JUDGMENT AS MOOT 16 ) ) (Docs. 38, 40, 45) 17 ) ) ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT 18 ) TO CLOSE THIS CASE ) 19

20 Fernando Gastelum seeks to hold Kohl’s Inc. liable for failure to have accessible features in 21 stores its located in Bakersfield and El Centro, California. In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff 22 added allegations related to additional visits made in 2022 to the identified Kohl’s stores. (See Doc. 37 23 at 8-9, ¶¶ 26, 28; id. at 10-13, ¶¶ 35-41; id. at 15-16, ¶¶ 50-56.) In addition,…

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.