Skaff v. City of Sausalito

Filing 16

ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR RELIEF 15 . Case Management Statement due by 6/4/2014. Case Management Conference set for 6/11/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 5/1/14. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 SIDNEY J. COHEN, Esq., State Bar No. 39023 SIDNEY J. COHEN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 427 Grand Avenue Oakland, CA 94610 Telephone: (510) 893-6682 Attorneys for Plaintiff Richard Skaff 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 RICHARD SKAFF CASE NO. C 13-01926 NC Civil Rights 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 12 13 CITY OF SAUSALITO and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, Defendants. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION, DECLARATION, AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR RELIEF FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Pursuant to General Order 56, paragraph / 8 And Local Civil Rule 7-11 14 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 15 16 Plaintiff brought this action against defendant City of Sausalito 17 alleging violations of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act and related 18 statutes and regulations. Accordingly, this case is governed by the procedures of 19 General Order 56. 20 21 22 23 24 The parties have complied with the requirements of paragraphs 1 through 7 of General Order 56. The parties have held two mediations and had scheduled a further mediation for April 30 and May 1, 2014. By e mail dated April 17, 2014 to mediator Daniel Bowling and the 25 undersigned, defendant’s City of Sausalito’s counsel stated “...that from the 26 City’s standpoint, the mediation process went forward in good faith (two 27 sessions) and is now completed, albeit without resolution.” Defendant’s counsel 28 . M O T IO N F O R A D M IN IS T RA T IV E RE LIE F F O R CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 1 1 then requested “... that the mediation be certified as completed per GO 56.” On April 24, 2014 the mediator certified that the case did not settle, 2 3 that further facilitated discussions are not expected, and that the ADR process is 4 complete (See DKT # 13). Because the case has not settled at mediation, Plaintiff files this 5 6 Motion For Administrative Relief requesting a Case Management Conference 7 pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 8 of General Order 56 and Local Civil 8 Rule 7-11. In scheduling a Case Management Conference, please take note of 9 10 the fact that Mr. Cohen, a solo practitioner and counsel for plaintiff, will be out 11 of the country and otherwise unavailable for any purpose during the period May 12 12, 2014 through June 1, 2014. (See DKT # 14.) In this regard, Plaintiff 13 requests that the Case Management Conference be set for Wednesday, June 11, 14 2014. 15 Date: May 1, 2014 SIDNEY J. COHEN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 16 /s/ Sidney J. Cohen 17 Sidney J. Cohen Attorney for Plaintiff Richard Skaff 18 DECLARATION OF SIDNEY J. COHEN 19 20 I, Sidney J. Cohen, declare: 21 1. I am counsel for Plaintiff in this action. I am an attorney in good 22 standing and licensed to practice in the courts of California, in the United States 23 District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, and Central Districts, in the United 24 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and in the United States Supreme 25 Court. If called upon to testify, I would testify as follows regarding the reasons I 26 was not able to obtain a Stipulation from defendant City of Sausalito’s counsel, 27 Adam Abel, agreeing to a Case Management Conference. 28 . M O T IO N F O R A D M IN IS T RA T IV E RE LIE F F O R CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 2 1 2. By e mail to Mr. Abel dated April 24, 2014, a true and correct copy 2 of which is enclosed as Exhibit 1, I, among other things, advised that 3 pursuant to paragraph 8 of General Order 56 and Local Civil Rule 7-11 Plaintiff 4 was obligated to file with the Court a Motion For Administrative Relief for a 5 Case Management Conference by no later than May 1,2014 and that the Motion 6 had to be accompanied by a Stipulation under Local Civil Rule 7-12 or by a 7 declaration stating why a stipulation could not be obtained. In this regard, 8 attached to the April 24 e mail for Mr. Abel’s review was Plaintiff’s proposed 9 “MOTION, STIPULATION, AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR 10 ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE,” 11 a true and correct copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit 2. 12 3. My April 24, 2014 e mail further requested that following his 13 review Mr. Abel date, sign,and provide me the dated and signed Stipulation if it 14 was acceptable to him, to e mail or call me if he had questions or concerns, or to 15 otherwise let me know if the Defendant City of Sausalito was not willing to 16 stipulate. 17 4. Finally, my April 24, 2014 e mail advised that if I did not have an 18 agreed upon, dated, and signed Stipulation by April 29, 2014 that I would 19 prepare the Motion with a declation that I could not obtain a Stipulation. 20 21 5. I have not received any communications whatsoever from Mr. Abel, or anyone else, in response to or in connection with this matter. 22 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 23 Executed this 1st day of May, 2014 at Oakland, California. /s/ Sidney J. Cohen ________________________________ Sidney J. Cohen 24 25 ORDER 26 27 Pursuant to paragraph 8 of General Order 56 and Local Civil Rule 28 . M O T IO N F O R A D M IN IS T RA T IV E RE LIE F F O R CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 3 1 7-11, and for good cause shown, the court sets a case management conference 2 for 10:00 A.M. on Wednesday,_______________. The parties shall e file a joint June 11, 2014 3 case management statement by no later than ________________. June 4, 2014 UNIT ED 7 8 NO 9 RT 10 . hanael M udge Nat J 11 12 A H ER Cousins LI 6 R NIA Date: May 1, 2014 RT U O S DISTRICT TE C _____________________________ TA Nathanael Cousins United States Magistrate Judge ERED O ORD IT IS S S 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. FO 4 N D IS T IC T R OF C 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . M O T IO N F O R A D M IN IS T RA T IV E RE LIE F F O R CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?