Opinion
Case No. 12cv2144 GEB (JFM)
11-07-2012
ROBERT DODSON, Plaintiff, v. PETSMART, INC. dba PETSMART #0048; THEODORE P. KOROS, TRUSTEE OF THE KOROS FAMILY TRUST UNDER AGREEMETN DATED MAY 8, 2012; ANGELA R. KOROS, TRUSTEE of the KOROS FAMILY TRUST UNDER AGREEMENT DATED MAY 8, 2012; SOPHIA PETER KELLEY; THOMAS KOROS; NICHOLAS KOROS; PETER T. KOROS, TRUSTEE of the KOROS FAMILY TRUST u/d/t DATED JANUARY 25, 1988; ELENI P. KOROS, TRUSTEE u/d/t DATED JANUARY 25, 1988, Defendants.
LYNN HUBBARD, III DISABLED ADVOCACY GROUP, APLC Attorneys for Plaintiff ROBERT DODSON MICHAEL G. LEGGIERI LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant PETSMART, INC.
JOHN M. JULIUS III, Bar No. 112640
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
MICHAEL G. LEGGIERI, Bar No. 253791
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
PETSMART, INC.
STIPULATION FOR 3-DAY EXTENSION
OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT PETSMART,
INC. TO RESPOND TO THE
COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Plaintiff Robert Dodson ("Dodson") and Defendant PetSmart, Inc. dba PetSmart #0048 ("PetSmart"), hereby stipulate to a 3-day extension of time so that PetSmart shall have until November 9, 2012, to respond to the Complaint. PetSmart's response is currently due today, November 6, 2012. Good cause exists for this extension because the parties have discussed the alleged access barriers listed in the Complaint and believe that an agreement to resolve the ADA access claims against PetSmart is imminent. In particular, permitting this short extension of time to respond to the Complaint will allow PetSmart to avoid the cost of preparing and filing a response if, as expected, the parties are able to finalize an agreement to resolve Dodson's claims against PetSmart.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
By:________
LYNN HUBBARD, III
DISABLED ADVOCACY GROUP,
APLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ROBERT DODSON
By: ________
MICHAEL G. LEGGIERI
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant
PETSMART, INC.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge