Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 20-1168486, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling
The unopposed Motion by Plaintiff Gilbert Salinas for relief from the dismissals of 19 consolidated Hotel Website Cases entered pursuant to the Request For Dismissal entered 10/21/2021 is DENIED.
All of the related actions plead violations of the ADA and Unruh Civil Rights Act, that the defendants
violated 28 C.F.R. §36.302(e)(1)(ii), which requires hotels to include certain information on their websites to allow disabled individuals to discern if the hotel is accessible to them.
On 8/30/2021, the Court issued “Minute Order No. 1” (ROA #45) regarding actions defined as the “Hotel Website Cases”.
Per that Minute Order, Garcia vs. Resort Rental LLC is the lead action, and for all of the Hotel Website Cases filed by the Center for Disability Access as counsel for plaintiffs: “(d) All motions, petitions and applications brought to the court for adjudication in any case subject to this order shall be served on all parties having registered an appearance in any of the cases, and the court will accept relevant and timely filings from such interested parties.” (ROA #45, 8/30/2021 Minute Order No. 1 §2 (d)).
Center for Disability Access asserts that it settled one of the consolidated actions, but filed a request for dismissal, with prejudice, in 19 pending actions. (See ROA #192) On behalf of all plaintiffs in all 19 cases, Salinas seeks relief from the dismissals under of CCP §473(b). The motion is unopposed.
This motion was initially set for hearing on 5/26/2022. On the date, the Court found service was defective because plaintiff did not serve all parties who have entered an appearance in any of the consolidated actions in violation of the 8/30/2021 order. The Court therefore continued the motion until July 7, 2022 and ordered the plaintiff to file proof of service demonstrating compliance with the court’s 8/30/2021 Minute Order and CCP §§1005 and 1014. (See ROA #368).
On 7/7/2022, the Court found that plaintiff did not comply with the 5/26/2022 order. He still had not filed a proof of service showing that the motion to vacate the dismissals in 19 actions was served on all parties who have entered an appearance in any of the actions. (ROA #407) The Court therefore ordered the matter continued and stated, “Plaintiff must comply with the orders of 8/30/3021 and 5/26/2022 regarding service.” (Id.)
On 8/4/2022, the court, on its own motion, continued this motion to 9/8/2022.
On 9/8/2022, the court again found that plaintiff had not complied with the Court’s 8/30/2021, 5/26/2022 and 7/7/2022 orders. No proof of service had been filed showing service of this motion on all parties who have entered an appearance in any of the consolidated actions.
On 9/30/2022, plaintiff served a Notice of Continued Hearing which contained a proof of service listing many of the parties who have entered an appearance but is still complete. Specifically, the proof of service lists 18 of the 19 defendants that were dismissed pursuant to the 10/21/21 Request for Dismissal but does not list the Langer v. Mariachi Cover Band, LLC action. Further, the proof of service does not list at least five other defendants who have entered an appearance in these consolidated actions as required by the Court’s 8/30/2021 Order. Additionally, the proof of service fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1013b(b)(1).
Due to plaintiff’s multiple failures to comply with this court’s orders, the motion is DENIED.
Moving party to give Notice of Ruling.