Heatherly et al v. Sonoma County Fair and Exposition, Inc. et al

Filing 6

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINES. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 11/27/13. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

BRUCE D. GOLDSTEIN, State Bar No. 135970
County Counsel
ANNE L. KECK, State Bar No. 136315
Deputy County Counsel
Office of the Sonoma County Counsel
575 Administration Drive, Room 105A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2815
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
Sonoma County Fair and Exposition, Inc.

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

DAREN HEATHERLY, IRMA RAMIREZ,
and HARRISON BENSON KINNEY, JR.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Case No. C-13-04327 KAW
JOINT STIPULATION TO (1) EXTEND
TIME IN WHICH TO FILE ANSWERS TO
COMPLAINT, AND (2) EXTEND TIME IN
WHICH TO HOLD JOINT INSPECTION
OF PREMISES, PER GENERAL ORDER
56; [PROPOSED] ORDER

v.
SONOMA COUNTY FAIR AND
EXPOSITION, INC., and COUNTY OF
SONOMA,
Defendants.
______________________________________/

TO THE HON. KANDIS A. WESTMORE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This Joint Stipulation to (1) Extend Time in Which to File Answers to Complaint, and (2)

21

Extend Time in Which to Hold Joint Inspection of Premises, Per General Order 56, is submitted by

22

all named parties in this action, including: Plaintiffs Daren Heatherly, Irma Ramirez, and Harrison

23

Benson Kinney, Jr. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), Defendant the Sonoma County Fair and Exposition,

24

Inc. (“Fair”), and Defendant the County of Sonoma (“County”).

25

The parties to this Stipulation request the Court to enter an order as follows: (1) approving an

26

extension of time in which Defendants may file their answers to the complaint through and including

27

December 17, 2013; and (2) amending the “Scheduling Order for Cases Asserting Denial of Right or

28

Joint Stipulation to (1) Extend Time in Which
to File Answers to Complaint, et al.

1

U.S.D.C. No. C-13-04327 KAW

1

Access Under Americans with Disabilities Act Title II & III (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 – 89),” entered

2

herein on September 18, 2013, to extend the time for the joint inspection of premises through and

3

including January 31, 2014. The parties submit that good cause supports their requests, as set forth

4

below.

5
6

RECITALS
A.

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages herein on

7

September 18, 2013. The complaint alleges four causes of action, as follows: (1) denial of access by

8

a public accommodation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §

9

12101, et seq.; (2) denial of full and equal access in violation of California Civil Code §§ 54, 54.1

10

and 54.3; (3) denial of accessible sanitary facilities in violation of California Health & Safety Code §

11

19955, et seq.; and (4) denial of access to full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities,

12

privileges, and/or services in violation of California Civil Code § 51, et seq.

13

B.

As this case asserts denial of a right of access protected by the Americans with

14

Disabilities Act, Northern District General Order No. 56 applies herein. Consistent with General

15

Order No. 56, on September 18, 2013, this Court issued its “Scheduling Order for Cases Asserting

16

Denial of Right or Access Under Americans with Disabilities Act Title II & III (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131

17

– 89) (Dkt. No. 3, hereinafter, the “Scheduling Order”). Under the Scheduling Order, the parties are

18

required to hold their joint inspection of the premises on or before January 2, 2014.

19

C.

The complaint was served on the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on October

20

11, 2013. Plaintiffs previously and informally agreed to an extension of time to respond to the

21

complaint through November 22, 2013.

22

D.

Defendants the Fair and the County intended to jointly engage Gene Elliot of the law

23

firm of Bertrand, Fox & Elliot to represent them in this matter. However, they have since identified

24

a potential conflict in doing so, which matter will be presented to the Sonoma County Board of

25

Supervisors in closed session on December 10, 2013. It is likely that the conflict issues between the

26

Defendants will be resolved by the Board at that meeting, which would permit Mr. Elliot to

27

represent both Defendants in this action and file one answer on their behalf. Without such action,

28

Joint Stipulation to (1) Extend Time in Which
to File Answers to Complaint, et al.

2

U.S.D.C. No. C-13-04327 KAW

1

the Defendants will be required to proceed in this case with separate counsel and answer the

2

complaint separately, which would increase the cost and decrease efficiencies proceeding forward.

3

E.

Plaintiffs have graciously agreed to provide Defendants with additional time in which

4

to resolve the potential conflict, and have provided Defendants through and including December 17,

5

2013, in which to file their answers to the complaint. This extension of time will not affect any date

6

set by the Court or the Federal Rules.

7

F.

In light of this extension of time, Plaintiffs have requested and Defendants have

8

agreed to seek a Court order extending the time in which they are required to conduct their joint

9

inspection of the premises, from the current date set in the Scheduling Order of January 2, 2014, to

10

January 31, 2014. This extension of time will allow the parties additional time in which to address

11

the procedural issues in this case as well as to inspect the premises, as inspection dates may be

12

limited based on inclement weather and/or scheduling issues.

13
14

WHEREFORE, the parties to this stipulation hereby agree and request entry of an order as
follows:

15
16
17
18
19
20

STIPULATION
1.

The time in which Defendants may file their answers to the complaint in this case is

requested to be extended through and including December 17, 2013.
2.

The date set in the Scheduling Order by which the parties are to complete their joint

inspection of the premises is requested to be extended through and including January 31, 2014.
3.

Nothing in this Stipulation and request for order is intended to modify the other

21

matters addressed in any Court order unless expressly identified herein, nor does it preclude the

22

parties from seeking additional relief from this Court, to amend this stipulation and order or

23

otherwise.
Respectfully Submitted,

24
25

Dated: November 26, 2013

26

Bruce D. Goldstein, Sonoma County Counsel
By:

27
28

Joint Stipulation to (1) Extend Time in Which
to File Answers to Complaint, et al.

3

/s/ Anne L. Keck
Anne L. Keck, Deputy County Counsel
Attorneys for Defendant Sonoma County Fair
and Exposition, Inc.
U.S.D.C. No. C-13-04327 KAW

1

Dated: November 26, 2013

2

Bertrand, Fox & Elliot
By:

3
4

Dated: November 26, 2013

5

/s/ Gene Elliot
Gene Elliot
Attorneys for Defendant the County of Sonoma

Thomas E. Frankovitch, a Professional Law Corp.
By:

6

/s/ Thomas E. Frankovich
Thomas E. Frankovitch
Attorney for Plaintiffs

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Joint Stipulation to (1) Extend Time in Which
to File Answers to Complaint, et al.

4

U.S.D.C. No. C-13-04327 KAW

1

ELECTRONIC CASE FILING ATTESTATION

2

I, Anne L. Keck, the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file the

3

foregoing document, hereby attest pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i) that the concurrence in the

4

filing of this document has been obtained from its signatories.

5

Dated: November 26, 2013

/s/ Anne L. Keck
Anne L. Keck
Attorney for Defendant Sonoma County
Fair and Exposition, Inc.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Joint Stipulation to (1) Extend Time in Which
to File Answers to Complaint, et al.

5

U.S.D.C. No. C-13-04327 KAW

1
2
3
4
5
6

[PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to and in accordance with the foregoing Stipulation, and with good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1.

The time in which Defendants may file their answers to the complaint in this case is

extended through and including December 17, 2013.
2.

The Scheduling Order entered on September 18, 2013 (Dkt. No. 3) is hereby

7

amended to provide that the parties are required complete their joint inspection of the premises on or

8

before January 31, 2014.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

11/27/13
Date: _____________

____________________________________
HONORABLE KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Joint Stipulation to (1) Extend Time in Which
to File Answers to Complaint, et al.

6

U.S.D.C. No. C-13-04327 KAW