Skaff v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC et al

Filing 12

ORDER for enlargement of time re 11 Stipulation, filed by Richard Skaff. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 6/30/2010. (be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2010)

Skaff v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC et al

Doc. 12

SIDNEY J. COHEN, ESQ., SBN 39023 SIDNEY J. COHEN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2 427 Grand Avenue Oakland, CA 94610 3 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]
1 4 5 6

Attorneys for Plaintiff RICHARD SKAFF

THEODORE l. WHITE (Pro Hac Vice Pending) DEUTSCH, KERRIGAN & STILES 7 755 Magazine St. New Orleans, LA 70130 8 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 9 [e-mail]
10 11 12 13 14 15

ANNE D. O'NIELL, SBN 120948 CHRISTINA A. LEE, SBN 257905 HINSHAW & CULBERTON LLP One California Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, Ca 94111 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail]

Attorneys for Defendants RITZ -CARLTON HOTEL 16 COMPANY, LLC, SHC HALF MOON BAY, LLC and DTRS 17 HALFMOON BAY, LLC
18 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICHARD SKAFF CASE NO. C 10 01115 CRB Civil Rights STIPULATION, DECLARATION, AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO COMPLETE THE GENERAL ORDER 56 JOINT SITE INSPECTION AND TO HOLD THE GENERAL ORDER 56 "MEET AND CONFER " Local Rule 6-2

20

Plaintiff,
21

V.
22

RITZ -CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, LLC; SHC HALF MOON BAY, LLC; DTRS HALF 24 MOON BAY, LLC; and DOES 1-25, Inclusiv e,
23 25

Defendants.
26 27 28

/

Stipulation, Declaration, And [Proposed] Order For Enlargement Of Time To Complete the General Order56 Joint Site Inspection And to Hold The General Order 56 "Meet And Confer"

Dockets.Justia.com

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

STIPULATION Plaintiff RICHARD SKAFF, by and through his attorney, and Defendants RITZ -CARLTON HOTELCOMPANY, LLC, SHC HALF MOON BAY, LLC, and DTRS HALF MOON BAY, LLC, by and through their attorneys, stipulate to an enlargement of time from June 24, 2010 to July 20, 2010 to complete the General Order 56 and Court Scheduling Order Joint Site Inspection and an enlargement of time from July 6, 2010 to August 20, 2010 to hold the General Order 56 "meet and confer." The parties to this action further stipulate that they have been working amicably and cooperatively together and that it is through no fault of either the plaintiff or the defendants that the joint site inspection was not completed by June 24, 2010. The parties further stipulate that the defendants have granted the plaintiff the right to inspect requested areas of the property in good faith and that none of the defendants has waived its right to assert that the scope of the plaintiff's inspection described in plaintiff's declaration exceeds the scope of inspection permissible under the Court's General Order 56 as it applies to the complaint in this action. The parties further stipulate that defendants have not waived their rights to assert that plaintiff lacks standing to seek relief for the entire scope of issues described in plaintiff's counsel's declaration. The parties further stipulate that this Stipulation may be signed in counterparts and that facsimile or electronically transmitted signatures shall be as valid and binding as original signatures. // // //
Stipulation, Declaration, And [Proposed] Order For Enlargement Of Time To Complete the General Order56 Joint Site Inspection And to Hold The General Order 56 "Meet And Confer"

-1-

1 2

Date: June 29,2010

SIDNEY J. COHEN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION /s/ Sidney J. Cohen

3 4 5

Sidney J. Cohen Attorney for Plaintiff Richard Skaff Date: June 29, 2010 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON and DEUTSCH, KERRIGAN & STILES /s/ Anne D. O'Niell Anne D. O'Niell Attorneys for Defendants Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC, SHC Half Moon Bay, LLC, and DTRS Half Moon Bay, LLC DECLARATION OF SIDNEY J. COHEN

6 7 8 9 10 11

I, Sidney J. Cohen, declare:
12

1.
13 14

I am counsel for Plaintiff 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
15

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and in the United States Supreme
16

Court. If called upon to testify, I would testify as follows:
17

2.
18 19

Pursuant to General Order 56 and this Court's Scheduling Order,

the parties were required to hold a joint site inspection by no later than June 24, 2010 at the property and premises of the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Half Moon Bay,
20

California.
21

3.
22 23

On June 22, 2010, the parties, counsel, and expert consultants attended

an all day site inspection at the property and premises of the Hotel. 4.
24 25

Plaintiff's two expert consultants were not able to complete their

inspection of the property and premises on June 22, 2010 for a variety of reasons, including but not necessarily limited to the following: the broad scope of the areas
26 27 28
Stipulation, Declaration, And [Proposed] Order For Enlargement Of Time To Complete the General Order56 Joint Site Inspection And to Hold The General Order 56 "Meet And Confer"

-2-

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

and items to inspect in the Hotel itself, which contains 261 guestrooms, numerous meeting rooms, multiple restaurants, multiple public restrooms, a fitness center, spa, beauty salon, elevators, shops, etc; the broad scope of the areas and items to inspect in additional structures on the property, including but not limited to a separate parking structure, cottages, colony club, tennis courts, etc.; the broad scope of the areas and items to inspect on the numerous paths of travel, sidewalks, curbs, etc spread out over the large common areas between the Hotel and related facilities and along the coastal paths of travel; and the inability to gain access to inspect certain areas and items due to the fact that the Hotel was at, or close to, 100% occupancy on June 22, 2010, including but not limited to the inability to inspect all but one of the designated accessible guestrooms and certain meeting rooms and meeting areas, 5. Having anticipated in advance of the June 22, 2010 joint site inspection

date that it might take more than one day to conduct the inspection, counsel for the parties had tentatively reserved June 24, 2010 to return to the Hotel to complete the inspection of any remaining items. However, in a discussion with Hotel personnel at the conclusion of the June 22, 2010 inspection counsel were advised that the Hotel was 100% booked for June 24, 2010 and further was booked at or close to 100% through approximately July 7, 2010. Consequently, it became clear that access to a substantial portion of the remaining items to inspect, including but not necessarily limited to the numerous designated accessible guestrooms, could not be obtained during the period that the Hotel was booked at, or close to, 100%. 6. In further discussion with Hotel personnel at the conclusion of the June

22, 2010 inspection counsel for the parties learned that the Hotel was booked to only approximately 40% to 50% capacity from approximately July 7-20, 2010, and counsel presently are in the process of setting a date during that approximate time frame to complete the joint site inspection.

Stipulation, Declaration, And [Proposed] Order For Enlargement Of Time To Complete the General Order56 Joint Site Inspection And to Hold The General Order 56 "Meet And Confer"

-3-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

7.

Following completion of the joint site inspection it will take a

significant period of time for Plaintiff's consultants to prepare their voluminous findings, which then will be transmitted to defendants' counsel for review and evaluation in advance of the "meet and confer." We estimate that thirty (30) to forty (40) calendar days following completion of the joint site inspection to prepare the findings and for Defendant to evaluate, review, and respond to each of the findings in this complex and broad scope case is a necessary time frame between the completion of the inspection and the "meet and confer" if the "meet and confer" is to meaningful. 8. Based on paragraphs 2-5, supra, the parties need an enlargement of

time to no later than July 20, 2010 to complete the joint site inspection and an enlargement of time to August 20, 2010 to conduct the "meet and confer." 9. With the exception of extending the June 24, 2010 joint site inspection

deadline and the follow on 10 day meet and confer and mediation deadlines, the extension does not effect court ordered deadlines. 10. A Stipulation to extend the time for Defendants to respond to the

17 Complaint (Docket No. 4) is the only previous modification in the case by 18 Stipulat ion or Court Order. 19 20 21 22

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 29th day of June, 2010 at Oakland, California. /s/ Sidney J. Cohen Sidney J. Cohen ORDER

23

Having considered the parties Stipulation and the supporting
24

Declaration, and for good cause shown, the court enlarges the date by which the
25

parties are to complete the joint site inspection to July 20, 2010 and enlarges the date
26 27 28
Stipulation, Declaration, And [Proposed] Order For Enlargement Of Time To Complete the General Order56 Joint Site Inspection And to Hold The General Order 56 "Meet And Confer"

-4-

1 by which the parties are to hold the "meet and confer" to August 20, 2010. 2 3 Date: 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
Stipulation, Declaration, And [Proposed] Order For Enlargement Of Time To Complete the General Order56 Joint Site Inspection And to Hold The General Order 56 "Meet And Confer"

IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 30, 2010

UNIT ED

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

-5-

A

C

LI

FO

harle Judge C

s R. Bre

yer

R NIA

Charles R. Breyer United States ERED Judge District O ORD IT IS S

S DISTRICT TE C TA _____________________________

RT U O

S
NO

RT

H