Lapachet v. California Forensic Medical Group, Inc. et al

Filing 39

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 38 Stipulation TO RESCIND ADA SCHEDULING ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER NO. 56, TO HAVE A NEW, STANDARD ORDER BE ISSUED, AND STIPULATION REGARDING DATE FOR INITIAL DISCLOSURES. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2017)

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

MICHAEL J. HADDAD (SBN 189114)
JULIA SHERWIN (SBN 189268)
T. KENNEDY HELM (SBN 282319)
MAYA SORENSEN (SBN 250722)
HADDAD & SHERWIN LLP
505 Seventeenth Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
SANJAY S. SCHMIDT (SBN 247475)
LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT
1388 Sutter Street, Suite 810
San Francisco, CA 94109
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL
GROUP, INC., TAYLOR FITHIAN, M.D., )
)
LANI ANTONIO, P.A., VERONICA
)
BERGHORST, R.N., JESSAMAE
)
TRINIDAD, R.N., GRASHIKA DEVENDRA, )
Psychiatric R.N., TABITHA KING, L.V.N., )
AMARDEEP TAWANA, L.V.N., JUDITH )
ALEJANDRE, L.V.N. COUNTY OF
)
)
STANISLAUS, a municipal corporation,
)
Stanislaus County Sheriff ADAM
CHRISTIANSON, and DOES 1-50, Jointly )
)
and Severally,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
JEREMY LAPACHET,

Case No. 4:16-cv-06959-HSG
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE: RESCINDING
SCHEDULING ORDER FOR CASE
ASSERTING DENIAL OF RIGHT OF
ACCESS UNDER AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT TITLE II & III (Dkts.
4 & 31)

No. 4:16-CV-06959-HSG: STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: ADA SCHEDULING ORDER

STIPULATION

1
2

The parties, by and through their respective attorneys of record, hereby respectfully

3

stipulate and agree as follows:

4

1. Whereas, on December 6, 2016, a “Scheduling Order for Cases Asserting Denial of Right

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

of Access Under Americans With Disabilities Act Title II & III (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-89)”
(hereafter “Scheduling Order”) was issued in the instant action, Dkt. 4, presumably due to
the inclusion of claims under Title II and Title III of the ADA in the Fifth Cause of Action
of the Complaint. Dkt. 1 at 42:9-45:9.
2. The Scheduling Order sets forth a series of successive dates. See Dkt. 4 at 1:24-2:8.
3. On February 23, 2017, this Court signed Granted a Stipulation and Proposed Order
previously submitted by the parties, which extended the original deadline of March 17,
2017 for the parties and counsel to hold the joint inspection of premises to June 9, 2017.

12

All of the other preceding and subsequent deadlines that were tied to the March 17, 2017

13

deadline were correspondingly extended. Dkt. 32 at 4.

14

4. Although there are Title II and III claims at issue in the instant case, the crux of these

15

claims is different than more common ADA claims, which expressly and exclusively

16

concern the physical condition of property. The claims here concern acts and omissions, as

17

set forth more fully in the Complaint. Dkt. 1 at 42:9-45:9. This case does not concern a

18

controversy surrounding physical barriers or physical access.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

5. Due to the fact that discovery has not commenced, the parties have concluded that it would
be premature to hold an inspection at the present time, even if Initial Disclosures under
Rule 26(a)(1) are made; the parties all agree that it would be premature and inefficient to
hold a joint inspection at this early stage.
6. Additionally, the parties agree that the issues presented in this case are such that this case is
more suitable for a normal scheduling track, as opposed to the scheduling track set forth in
General Order No. 56, pursuant to which the Scheduling Order (Dkt. 4) in the instant action
was issued.

No. 4:16-CV-06959-HSG: STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: ADA SCHEDULING ORDER

1

7. Consequently, the parties respectfully request that this action be taken off of the scheduling

2

track prescribed by General Order No. 56 and, instead, that it be placed on the standard

3

track for cases not covered by General Order No. 56. The parties’ understanding of the

4

effect of this stipulation, if granted, is that all deadlines preceding and subsequent to the

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

deadline by which to hold a joint inspection prescribed by the Scheduling Order (Dkts. 4 &
32), which currently is June 9, 2017, would be vacated.
8. The parties, nevertheless, still wish to exchange Initial Disclosures, and have designated
June 30, 2017 as the date by which Initial Disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure shall be made.
9. Based on the foregoing circumstances, the parties hereby jointly request that this matter be
taken off the scheduling track prescribed by General Order 56, and that a standard
scheduling order for cases not covered by General Order No. 56 be issued instead.

12

10. Accordingly, the parties stipulate and respectfully request that this Court enter the Order

13

below, rescinding the Scheduling Order (Dkt. 4), as well as the Order amending the

14

Scheduling Order (Dkt. 32), while ordering that standard orders for cases not covered by

15

General Order No. 56 be issued, and ordering that Initial Disclosures be made on or before

16

June 30, 2017.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
No. 4:16-CV-06959-HSG: STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: ADA SCHEDULING ORDER

1
2

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.
Dated: June 2, 2017

3

/s/ Sanjay S. Schmidt
SANJAY S. SCHMIDT
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
JEREMY LAPACHET

4
5
6

LAW OFFICE OF SANJAY S. SCHMIDT

Dated: June 2, 2017

7

BERTLING & CLAUSEN, LLP
/s/ Jemma Saunders*
JEMMA SAUNDERS
Attorneys for Defendants CFMG, Fithian, Antonio,
Berghorst, Trinidad, Devendra, King, Tawana, Alejandre

8
9
10
11
12
13

Dated: June 2, 2017

RIVERA & ASSOCIATES
/s/ Jesse Manuel Rivera*
JESSE MANUEL RIVERA
Attorneys for Defendants County of Stanislaus, Sheriff
Adam Christianson

14
15
16
17

*Ms. Saunders and Mr. Rivera have given their consent to file this stipulation with their
electronic signatures.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

No. 4:16-CV-06959-HSG: STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: ADA SCHEDULING ORDER
4

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION ABOVE, AND GOOD CAUSE APPEARING

3

THEREFOR, IT IS SO ORDERED. The Scheduling Order (Dkt. 4), as amended (Dkt. 32),

4

shall be rescinded. Standard orders for cases not covered by General Order No. 56 will be

5

issued forthwith. The parties shall make their Initial Disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) of the

6

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on or before June 30, 2017.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10
11

Dated: _______________
6/5/2017

_______________________________
Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

No. 4:16-CV-06959-HSG: STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: ADA SCHEDULING ORDER
5