Martin v. JAD San Pablo LLC

Filing 10

ORDER for enlargement of time to conduct "meet and confer" re 9 Stipulation filed by Carolyn Martin. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 4/21/2010. (be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2010)

SIDNEY J. COHEN, ESQ., State Bar No. 39023 SIDNEY J. COHEN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2 427 Grand Avenue Oakland, CA 94610 3 Telephone: [phone]
1 4 5

Attorneys for Plaintiff CAROLYN MARTIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7

CAROLYN MARTIN
8

Plaintiff,
9

CASE NO. C 09-06025 CRB Civil Rights STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO APRIL 30, 2010 TO CONDUCT "MEET AND CONFER" / (Local Rule 6-2)

V.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Stip ulat ion And [Proposed] Order For Enlargment Of Time

JAD SAN PABLO LLC; and DOES 1-25, Inclusive, Defendants.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

STIPULATION Plaintiff Carolyn Martin, by and through her attorney, and Defendant JAD SAN PABLO LLC , by and through its attorney, stipulate to an enlargement of time from April 16, 2010 to April 30, 2010 to conduct the "meet and confer" required by paragraph 4 of General Order 56 and, for the reasons stated in the declaration of Sidney J. Cohen set forth below, request that the Court order an enlargement to the April 30, 2010 date. Date: 4 / 1 6 / 1 0 SIDNEY J. COHEN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION /s/ Sidney J. Cohen

10 11 12

SIDNEY J. COHEN Attorney for Plaintiff Carolyn Martin Date: 4 / 1 6 / 1 0 THE DAVIS LAW FIRM /s/ Marguerite E. Meade

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Stip ulat ion And [Proposed] Order For Enlargment Of Time

Marguerite E. Meade Attorneys for Defendant JAD San Pablo LLC DECLARATION OF SIDNEY J. COHEN I, Sidney J. Cohen, declare as follows: 1. I am counsel for Plaintiff Carolyn Martin in this action. I am an attorney in good standing and licensed to practice in the courts of California, in the United States District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, and Central Districts, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and in the United States Supreme Court. If called upon to testify, I would testify as follows: 2. On April 2, 2010 the parties, their counsel, and their consultants

attended the joint site inspection required by paragraph 4 of General Order 56. 3. On April 12, 2010 plaintiff's consultant completed his 44page

Report, which identifies each of the 90 barriers to access which plaintiff asserts

-1-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

are present at the property and premises which is the subject of the lawsuit which sets forth the state and federal regulations for each alleged barrier which plaintiff claims requires remediation work, and which sets forth the scope of work to remove each alleged barrier which plaintiff asserts is required to bring the property and premises into compliance with the federal and state regulations for access. 4. Because of the parties', counsels', and consultants' conflicting

schedules, and because of the time required for the preparation of the Report by plaintiff's consultant and the time required for review of the Report by defendant's consultant, it has not been possible to schedule the "meet and confer" to take place by the April 16, 2010 deadline. 5. There here has been one modification made to the deadlines

imposed by statute, rule of court, or by the Court in this Action. The modification was a Stipulation to extend the time for defendant to respond to the complaint. 9 With the exception of the April 16, 2010 deadline to hold the "meet

and confer," which is the deadline that is the subject of this request for an enlargement of time, the extension of the deadline to April 30, 2010 to hold the "meet and confer in the case will not effect any time lines or deadlines established by statute, rule of court, or the Court in this Action. 11. For the reasons stated above, the parties are by this stipulation requesting that the Court extend the meet and confer deadline from April 16, 2010 to April 30, 2010. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 16, 2010 in the City of Oakland, California. /s/ Sidney J. Cohen ________________________ Sidney J. Cohen
Stip ulat ion And [Proposed] Order For Enlargment Of Time

-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ORDER ENLARGING TIME TO CONDUCT MEDIATION 1. Upon the stipulated request made by the parties in this Action, the Court finds good cause to enlarge the "meet and confer" deadline from April 15, 2010 to April 30, 2010. 2. The Court orders that the date by which the parties are to conduct the "meet and confer" is enlarged from April 15, 2010 to April 30, 2010. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: April 21, 2010
S DISTRICT TE C TA

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNIT ED

9

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

Stip ulat ion And [Proposed] Order For Enlargment Of Time

-3-

A

C

LI

FO

J

arles R udge Ch

. Breyer

R NIA

CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DERED SO OR IT IS
S
NO

RT U O

RT

H