1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ORLANDO GARCIA, Case No. 21-cv-04547-SK

8 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR 9 v. HEARING

10 CHEW LUN BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, 11 Defendant. 12 13 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE 14 OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON JANUARY 24, 15 2022 at 9:30 A.M. The Court intends to address the questions below at the hearing. The Court 16 advises the parties that it will not accept written answers to these questions. 17 The parties shall be prepared to address the following questions at the hearing: 18 (1) In his motion for default judgment, Plaintiff states that he “lives is [sic] in this 19 geographical area on a constant and on-going basis.” (Dkt. No. 13-1.) In his 20 declaration, Plaintiff states that he is “in this area on a regular and ongoing basis . . 21 . .” (Dkt. No. 13-4, ¶ 7.) Where does Plaintiff live? To what is he referring in 22 talking about “this geographical area”? Does Plaintiff live in this “area” or just visit? If he just visits, how frequently does he visit? 23 (2) Under the burden-shifting approach adopted by the Ninth Circuit, Plaintiff bears 24 the plaintiff bears the initial burden of plausibly showing that a proposal for 25 removing a barrier is readily achievable. Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc., 26

(9th Cir. 2020) (“plaintiffs must plausibly show how the cost 27 1 circumstances”). In his motion, while Plaintiff discusses this legal standard, he 2 does not discuss any of the facts. In fact, Plaintiff does not even state what 3 accommodation he requests, let alone make any showing that the accommodation 4 would not exceed the benefits under the circumstances. What is the 5 accommodation Plaintiff requests? Is it readily achievable? 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || Dated: January 18, 2022 8 Arti ow SALLIE KIM 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 ll a 12

13 14

15 16 € = 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28