Opinion
WILLIAM H. LEIFER, GILMORE MAGNESS LEIFER, Fresno, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Mahmood, Modirzadeh.
MOORE LAW FIRM, Tanya E. Moore, Attorneys for Attorneys for Plaintiff Jose Escobedo.
SALGADO'S FAMILY GROUP DBA LETY'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT, Raul Salgado, Specially Appearing for the Corporation for the Limited Purpose of Securing an Extension and Continuance.
Michael Eng, Attorneys for Michael Eng dba J&J Wireless.
Johny Sryavong, Attorneys for Johny Sryavong dba J&J Wireless.
SECOND STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; and FIRST STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE; ORDER
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, Jose Escobedo ("Plaintiff"), through his attorney, Defendant Mahmood Modirzadeh, Trustee of the Namaki Living Trust U/D/T dated June 27, 2002 ("Modirzadeh"), through his attorney, and Defendants Salgado's Family Group dba Lety's Mexican Restaurant ("Salgado"), Michael Eng dba J&J Wireless ("Eng"), and Johny Sryavong dba J&J Wireless ("Sryavong, " and together with Modirzadeh, Salgado and Eng, collectively "Defendants"), who are presently not represented and specially appearing pro se for purposes of obtaining this additional extension and continuance, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. This action arises out of Plaintiff's claims that he is disabled, and that the property owned and/or operated by Defendants was and is not fully accessible to him in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189, and parallel California law. Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to make the property fully accessible to him, as well as damages.
2. Defendants' responses to the complaint were initially due August 17, 2015, which deadline was extended by stipulation to September 14, 2015 (Dkt. 9).
3. The purpose of the initial extension was to permit Defendants time to obtain an inspection of the property by a California Certified Access Specialist ("CASp") and subsequent report, to determine what, if any, barriers to access exist at the subject property and which report could form the basis of a resolution of Plaintiff's equitable claims.
4. Defendants have indicated a willingness to make Plaintiff's requested modifications, but there has been a delay in obtaining the CASp report and getting bids to have the work performed. Defendants anticipate that such information should be obtained by October 16, 2015, which will then allow the parties to engage in settlement discussions.
5. A Scheduling Conference is currently set for October 13, 2015.
6. The parties are cautiously optimistic that this matter will settle, and that it will therefore not be necessary for responsive pleadings to be filed nor for the scheduling conference to proceed. As such, the parties wish to conserve both the fees expended as well as Court resources while they exhaust settlement efforts.
7. For these reasons, the parties stipulate to continue the deadline to file responsive pleadings to October 30, 2015, and that the Scheduling Conference be continued to a date at the Court's convenience on or after November 13, 2015.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
The parties having stipulated and good cause appearing.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all Defendants shall have to and including October 30, 2015 within which to respond to Plaintiff's complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference is continued from October 13, 2015 to December 1, 2015 at 3:30 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Scheduling Report at least seven days prior to the conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.