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)

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 [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
E-mail: [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