Escobedo v. El Rinconcito Mexican Grill, LLC
1:24-cv-01457
E.D. Cal.Jul 7, 2025Background
- Jose Escobedo, who claims a mobility disability, filed an ADA lawsuit regarding accessibility barriers at El Rinconcito Mexican Grill in California.
- Plaintiff alleged, among other barriers, a lack of designated accessible parking and uneven paths.
- Escobedo served a demand for inspection of the property, which Flipside Christian Church (property owner) resisted by seeking a stay pending its motion to dismiss based on standing and mootness.
- The court initially stayed discovery since no Rule 26(f) conference had occurred, but the parties later held such a conference.
- Flipside's motion to dismiss the ADA claim (for mootness/lack of standing) is pending, but the district's case backlog means resolution will be delayed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stay of Discovery Pending Motion to Dismiss | Needs inspection to respond to motion | Motion to dismiss could end case, so discovery should wait | Denied stay; inspection needed for fair response |
| Motion to Compel Site Inspection | Must verify defense's ADA compliance | Agrees inspection is relevant, but should be delayed until motion resolved | Granted; inspection to proceed |
| Motion for Sanctions | Sought attorneys' fees for delays | No argument presented in joint statement | Denied without prejudice due to procedural defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1988) (sets out broad court discretion in controlling discovery)
- Church of Scientology of San Francisco v. Internal Revenue Service, 991 F.2d 560 (9th Cir. 1993) (discovery stays should not preclude a party from preparing for dispositive motion)
- DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (burden on party opposing discovery to explain why it should not proceed)