Moralez v. Save Mart Supermarkets et al

Filing 15

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 14 extending time for both Defendants to respond (third); and extension to complete joint site inspection. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/14/17. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 Zachary M. Best, SBN 166035 MISSION LAW FIRM, A.P.C. 332 North Second Street San Jose, California 95112 Telephone (408) 298-2000 Facsimile (408) 298-6046 E-mail: Attorneys for Plaintiff Francisca Moralez 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 FRANCISCA MORALEZ, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS dba FOOD ) ) MAXX #482, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 3:17-cv-00140-RS THIRD STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR BOTH DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; and STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO COMPLETE JOINT SITE INSPECTION REQUIRED BY GENERAL ORDER 56; [PROPOSED] ORDER 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THIRD STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME and TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR JOINT SITE INSPECTION; [PROPOSED] ORDER Page 1 1 Plaintiff, Francisca Moralez (“Plaintiff”), and Defendants, Save Mart Supermarkets dba 2 Food Maxx #482 and RMP Properties, LLC (collectively “Defendants,” and together with 3 Plaintiff, “the Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: 4 1. This action arises out of Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants denied her full and 5 equal access to their public accommodation on account of her disability in violation of Title III 6 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and parallel California law. Plaintiff seeks 7 injunctive relief under federal and California law, as well as damages under California law. 8 This matter therefore proceeds under this district’s General Order 56 which governs ADA 9 access matters. 10 2. The Court issued a Scheduling Order under General Order 56 which requires that 11 the Parties conduct a joint site inspection of the subject property on or before April 26, 2017. 12 (ECF No. 4.) 13 3. Plaintiff and Defendants have been working together extensively and 14 cooperatively to seek an informal resolution of this matter. To this end, Defendants have 15 provided an accessibility report from a California Certified Access Specialist with regards to the 16 interior of the Food Maxx business, which report may provide a basis for resolving Plaintiff’s 17 equitable claims regarding the interior of the property. 18 4. Plaintiff and Defendants are cautiously optimistic that a resolution of the matter 19 as to Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets will therefore be reached shortly which will allow a 20 dismissal with prejudice of Save Mart Supermarkets from this action. 21 5. Plaintiff and Defendants only recently learned that there is another entity who 22 may have liability for Plaintiff’s claims as to the exterior of the subject property, but who is not 23 yet a named party. Plaintiff and Defendants are securing the participation of that entity which 24 they believe is necessary in order to reach a full and complete settlement of Plaintiff’s exterior 25 claims, and an informal resolution is being explored with that entity. 26 27 6. The Parties wish additional time to explore settlement without the need to file responsive pleadings, conduct the joint site inspection, or to amend the Complaint to add the 28 THIRD STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME and TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR JOINT SITE INSPECTION; [PROPOSED] ORDER Page 2 1 newly discovered entity, in order to minimize the expenditure of attorneys’ fees and costs given 2 that Defendants and the as yet unnamed party have either provided, or expressed a willingness 3 to provide, an access report in an effort to resolve Plaintiff’s equitable claims regarding the 4 exterior of the subject property. 5 7. The Parties believe that an additional 35 days within which to conduct the site 6 inspection will afford them enough time to fully exhaust their informal settlement efforts 7 without the expense of conducting a joint site inspection, responding to the Complaint, or 8 amending the Complaint to add a new party. Should the Parties be unable to reach an informal 9 resolution of Plaintiff’s claims within that time, they will then proceed with the site inspection, 10 11 responsive pleadings, and amendment of the Complaint. 8. Accordingly, the Parties stipulate to extend the deadline for Defendants to 12 respond to Plaintiff’s complaint, and for the Parties to conduct the joint site inspection, to May 13 31, 2017. 14 15 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 16 17 Dated: April 14, 2017 MISSION LAW FIRM, A.P.C. 18 /s/ Zachary M. Best Zachary M. Best Attorneys for Plaintiff, Francisca Moralez 19 20 21 22 Dated: April 14, 2017 LANG RICHERT & PATCH 23 24 25 26 /s/ Charles Trudung Taylor Charles Trudung Taylor Attorneys for Defendants Save Mart Supermarkets dba Food Maxx #482 and RMP Properties, LLC 27 28 THIRD STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME and TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR JOINT SITE INSPECTION; [PROPOSED] ORDER Page 3 1 ORDER 2 The Parties having so stipulated and good cause appearing, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ responsive pleading deadline is extended 4 to May 31, 2017. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for the Parties to complete the joint site 6 inspection is extended to May 31, 2017, with all dates triggered by that deadline continued 7 accordingly. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 12 Dated: 4/14/17 RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THIRD STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME and TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR JOINT SITE INSPECTION; [PROPOSED] ORDER Page 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?