Che v. San Jose/Evergreen Community College District Foundation et al

Filing 47

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 43 DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF EXTENDING MEDIATION DEADLINE, OR COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL ORDER 56; GRANTING 44 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS; AND DENYING 45 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/11/2017. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2017)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN JOSE DIVISION

4
5

NGOC LAM CHE,
Plaintiff,

6

Case No. 17-cv-00381-BLF

11

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
RELIEF EXTENDING MEDIATION
DEADLINE, OR COMPELLING
COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL
ORDER 56 ¶ 4; GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCEED
PAGE LIMITS; AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
SANCTIONS

12

[Re: ECF 43, 44, 45]

7
8
9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

v.
SAN JOSE/EVERGREEN COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT FOUNDATION, et
al.,
Defendants.

13
14

Defendants Imwalle Properties, Inc. and San Jose Evergreen Community College District

15

have filed an administrative motion (ECF 43) to extend the October 23, 2017 deadline for

16

mediation based on Plaintiff Ngoc Lam Che’s asserted noncompliance with General Order 56 ¶ 4.

17

Plaintiff has filed an opposition (ECF 45) which exceeds the five-page limit set forth in Civil

18

Local Rule 7-11(b), along with a motion for leave to exceed applicable page limits (ECF 44). In

19

his opposition brief, Plaintiff requests that the Court sanction Defendants for failure to comply

20

with General Order 56.

21

Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Page Limits

22

Plaintiff’s motion to exceed page limits is GRANTED, not because the motion has merit

23

but because it would be more trouble than it is worth to strike Plaintiff’s overlength brief and

24

require Plaintiff to file a replacement brief which conforms with Civil Local Rule 7-11(b).

25

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions

26

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions violates this Court’s Civil Local Rules, which require that

27

“[a]ny motion for sanctions, regardless of the sources of authority invoked,” must be separately

28

filed and noticed for hearing. See Civ. L.R. 7-8. Accordingly, the request is DENIED.

1

Defendants’ Administrative Motion

2

Defendants’ administrative motion and Plaintiffs’ opposition thereto indicate that each side

3

believes that the other has failed to comply with the requirements of General Order 56 ¶ 4. That

4

provision requires the parties to meet and confer regarding settlement of the action and, in

5

particular, to discuss all claimed violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and

6

Defendants’ willingness to take corrective action. General Order 56 ¶ 4. Defendants assert that

7

Plaintiff has declined to “specify all claimed access violations and the corrective actions requested

8

of defendant” as required under General Order 56 ¶ 4. Defendants request that the Court continue

9

the October 23, 2017 mediation deadline on the ground that mediation will not be productive
absent Plaintiff’s identification of all claimed access violations. In opposition, Plaintiff asserts

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

that he provided Defendants with a settlement demand which listed the claimed access violations,

12

and that Defendants did not respond. Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ administrative motion is

13

brought solely for purposes of delay.

14

The Court ORDERS as follows:

15

(1)

Plaintiff SHALL provide Defendants with a written statement, on or before August

16

18, 2017, which specifies “all claimed access violations and the corrective actions requested of”

17

Defendants. General Order 56 ¶ 4. Such statement shall comply fully with General Order 56 ¶ 4.

18

(2)

Defendants SHALL provide Plaintiff with a written statement, on or before August

19

25, 2017, specifying with respect to each claimed violation whether Defendants are “willing to

20

undertake the requested corrective actions or [have] an alternate proposal.” General Order 56 ¶ 4.

21

If Defendants claim that “any proposed corrective action is not readily achievable under Title III

22

or otherwise required by law, [Defendants] shall specify the factual basis for this claim.” Id. Such

23

statement shall comply fully with General Order 56 ¶ 4.

24

(3)

The mediation deadline REMAINS October 23, 2017.

25
26
27
28

Dated: August 11, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
2