Scott Johnson v. SSR Group, Inc. et al
Filing
19
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, DKT. NO. 16 . The parties are ORDERED to complete the joint inspection and meet and confer process pursuant to General Order 56. All briefing on Defendant's Motion is STAYED and the 2/25/2016 hearing is VACATED. Parties to file joint status report. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 1/25/2016. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
SCOTT JOHNSON,
Case No. 15-cv-05094-MEJ
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS
v.
Re: Dkt. No. 16
9
10
SSR GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
On January 20, 2016, Defendant SSR Group, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that
14
Plaintiff Scott Johnson’s ADA claims have been rendered moot by Defendant’s elimination of the
15
access barriers identified in his Complaint. Prior to consideration of Defendant’s motion, the
16
Court finds it would be beneficial for the parties to meet and confer in an attempt to resolve this
17
matter informally pursuant to General Order 56. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to
18
complete the initial disclosures, joint inspection of premises, and meet and confer requirements of
19
General Order 56. The parties shall file a joint status report within seven days of completion of
20
these requirements. The February 25, 2016 hearing on Defendant’s motion is VACATED and all
21
briefing deadlines under Civil Local Rule 7 are STAYED pending the outcome of the meet and
22
confer process.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: January 25, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of California
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
2
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?