Hernandez et al v. Vallco Shopping Mall, LLC et al

Filing 259

ORDER GRANTING SECOND REQUEST TO CONTINUE FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND DATE SET FOR AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS re 257 Proposed Order. Amended Pleadings due by 5/4/2012. Case Management Statement due by 4/27/2012. Case Management Conference set for 5/4/2012 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/27/2012. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

K. Randolph Moore, Esq. SBN 106933
Tanya E. Moore, Esq. SBN 206683
MOORE LAW FIRM, P.C.
332 North Second Street
San Jose, California 95112
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Alma Clarisa Hernandez,
Ronald Moore, and
Theresa Wallen

7
8
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

ALMA CLARISA HERNANDEZ, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

vs.
VALLCO INTERNATIONAL SHOPPING
CENTER, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:10-CV-02848-EJD
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND REQUEST TO
CONTINUE FURTHER CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND
DATE SET FOR AMENDMENT OF
PLEADINGS; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Assigned to Honorable Edward J. Davila

19

Plaintiffs Alma Clarisa Hernandez, Theresa Wallen and Ronald Moore (“Plaintiffs”)

20

hereby respectfully request that the Court again continue the Further Case Management

21

Conference currently set for March 16, 2012 and the deadline of February 29, 2012 for

22

amendment of pleadings, both set upon request of Plaintiffs and by the Court’s Order dated

23

December 15, 2011, for the following reasons:

24

1. This matter was brought by Plaintiffs under the Americans with Disabilities Act

25

Title III (“ADA”) to have alleged barriers to their access removed from defendants’ facilities

26

located at the Vallco Shopping Mall in Cupertino, California. Accordingly, this Court’s

27

General Order 56 (“GO 56”) has governed the procedural course of this matter to date. The

28

mediation required under GO 56 was originally set by the mediator Daniel Bowling for
1
Hernandez, et al. v. Vallco Shopping Mall, LLC, et al.

1

January 23 and 24, 2012, but those dates were cancelled at the last minute due to the sudden

2

and unanticipated hospitalization of defendants’ expert Kim Blackseth whose participation was

3

determined by the mediator and various defendants to be indispensable. Mr. Bowling has

4

rescheduled the mediation to March 2, 2012, March 8, 2012 and March 9, 2012, with an

5

additional date of April 12, 2012 proposed (although yet to be confirmed, and which date may

6

be forced into May 2012) as a follow-up date if the matter is not resolved at the previous

7

mediation dates.

8

2. Plaintiffs have now resolved this matter as to all but ten (10) defendants (seven (7)

9

pro se defendants and three (3) represented defendants), are finalizing those settlements, and

10

are optimistic that mediation will resolve the matter as to most if not all the remaining

11

defendants.

12

3. The purpose of GO 56 is “to require the parties to engage in a structured process

13

designed to achieve early compliance with the ADA while minimizing the adversarial litigation

14

process and concomitant fees.” White v. Ming R. Shen, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2174 (N.D.

15

Cal. Jan. 5, 2011). The Further Case Management Conference will best serve the purpose of

16

GO 56 if held after mediation in order to afford the parties an opportunity to reach an informal

17

resolution prior to incurring the costs preparing for and attending the conference.

18

4. Requiring amendment of Plaintiffs’ operative complaint prior to the completion of

19

mediation will needlessly add significant attorney fees to address allegations against

20

defendants who may be dismissed after mediation. Plaintiffs must amend their complaint to

21

conform to the standing requirements of Chapman v. Pier One Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d

22

939 (9th Cir. 2011) (decided after Plaintiffs’ filing of their Second Amended Complaint) and

23

also to allege every barrier they seek to have removed from each of defendants’ facilities

24

(information obtained as a result of the joint site inspections which occurred after Plaintiffs’

25

initial filing). Amongst other relief, Plaintiffs seek the recovery of attorney fees and costs in

26

this matter. Therefore, minimizing the amount of such fees is beneficial to all defendants in

27

this action.

28

///
2
Hernandez, et al. v. Vallco Shopping Mall, LLC, et al.

1

5. Accordingly, Plaintiffs hereby respectfully request that the Court continue the

2

Further Case Management Conference to a date after June 8, 2012 to afford time for the

3

completion of mediation, and the last date to file a motion for leave to amend their Second

4

Amended Complaint to June 8, 2012.

5

Dated: February 16, 2012

MOORE LAW FIRM, P.C.

6
7

/s/ Tanya E. Moore
Tanya E. Moore, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs Alma Clarisa Hernandez,
Ronald Moore and Theresa Wallen

8
9
10
ORDER

11

Upon request of Plaintiffs and good cause appearing,

12
13
14
15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Further Case Management Conference be
10:00 a.m. in
May 4
continued to ______________, 2012 at _____ in Courtroom 1. The Parties are ordered to file
Courtroom 4
an updated Case Management Conference Statement one week prior to the conference.
May 4, 2012
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall have to and including June 8, 2012

16
17

to file a stipulation or motion to amend their Second Amended Complaint.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated:

February 27, 2012
United States District Court Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Hernandez, et al. v. Vallco Shopping Mall, LLC, et al.