Moralez v. Lee et al
Filing
14
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION by Judge William Alsup granting 13 Stipulation.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/25/2017)
1
2
3
4
Zachary M. Best, SBN 166035
Tanya E. Moore, SBN 206683
MISSION LAW FIRM, A.P.C.
332 North Second Street
San Jose, California 95112
Telephone: (408) 298-2000
Facsimile: (408) 298-6046
E-mail: service@mission.legal
5
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Francisca Moralez
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
FRANCISCA MORALEZ,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
EUN JOO LEE dba SHARON HEIGHTS
)
WINES & LIQUORS; KENNETH S. LEE dba )
SHARON HEIGHTS WINES & LIQUORS; )
)
SHARON HEIGHTS WINE & LIQUOR,
)
INC.; RADIN CO., A CALIFORNIA
)
)
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
No. 3:17-cv-03584-WHA
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE LAST
DATE TO MEET AND CONFER UNDER
GENERAL ORDER 56 AND RELATED
DATE; [PROPOSED] ORDER
22
WHEREAS, on June 22, 2017, the Court issued a Scheduling Order for Cases
23
Asserting Denial of Right of Access under the Americans with Disabilities Act (Dkt. 4) (“the
24
Scheduling Order”);
25
WHEREAS, Plaintiff Francisca Moralez (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Eun Joo Lee dba
26
Sharon Heights Wines & Liquors; Kenneth S. Lee dba Sharon Heights Wines & Liquors;
27
Sharon Heights Wines & Liquor, Inc.; and Radin Co., a California Limited Partnership
28
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE LAST DATE TO MEET AND CONFER UNDER GENERAL ORDER 56
AND RELATED DATE; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Page 1
1
(“Defendants,” and together with Plaintiff, “the Parties”) conducted the joint site inspection
2
required pursuant to General Order 56 and the Scheduling Order on September 28, 2017;
3
4
WHEREAS, the Scheduling Order requires that the Parties, and their counsel, meet and
confer in person no later than 28 days after the joint site inspection, here, October 26, 2017;
5
6
WHEREAS, due to the unavailability of defense counsel for Defendants, the Parties
cannot complete the meet and confer prior to the deadline;
7
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated by and between the Parties, through their
8
respective counsel, that the meet and confer required under General Order 56 and this Court’s
9
Scheduling Order take place on November 20, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. The Parties accordingly
10
request an extension of the deadline to complete the meet and confer to November 20, 2017.
11
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that if a settlement of the matter is not reached at the
12
meet and confer, that Plaintiff shall file a Notice of Need for Mediation within 14 days of the
13
meet and confer.
14
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
15
16
Dated: October 25, 2017
MISSION LAW FIRM, A.P.C.
17
/s/ Tanya E. Moore
Tanya E. Moore
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Francisca Moralez
18
19
20
21
Dated: October 25, 2017
PAHL & McCAY
22
/s/ Servando R. Sandoval
Servando R. Sandoval
Attorneys for Defendants,
Diroug Diekgers dba Eric’s Gourmet Food
& Catering; and Radin Co., a California
Limited Partnership
23
24
25
26
///
27
///
28
///
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE LAST DATE TO MEET AND CONFER UNDER GENERAL ORDER 56
AND RELATED DATE; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Page 2
1
ATTESTATION
2
Concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the individual(s)
whose electronic signature is attributed above.
3
4
/s/ Tanya E. Moore
Tanya E. Moore
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Francisca Moralez
5
6
7
ORDER
8
The parties having so stipulated and good cause appearing,
9
10
11
12
13
14
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the in person meet and confer required by this
Court’s Scheduling Order and General Order 56 shall take place no later than November 20,
2017.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the parties are unable to reach a settlement of
this matter at the in person meet and confer, Plaintiff shall file a Notice of Need for Mediation
within 14 days of the meet and confer.
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
19
Dated: October 25, 2017.
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE LAST DATE TO MEET AND CONFER UNDER GENERAL ORDER 56
AND RELATED DATE; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Page 3
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?