LEMA v. MODESTO HOSPITALITY, LLC

Full title: GENEVA LEMA, Plaintiff, v. MODESTO HOSPITALITY, LLC, DOES 1 through 50…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: May 17, 2011

Case No. 1:10-cv-02018-AWI-GSA (E.D. Cal. May. 17, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 1:10-cv-02018-AWI-GSA.

May 17, 2011

GARY R. BASHAM (Bar No. 130119), AARON R. JACKSON (Bar No. 233816), BASHAM LAW GROUP, Sacramento, California, Attorneys for Defendant, MODESTO HOSPITALITY.

TIMOTHY S. THIMESCH, ESQ., THIMESCH LAW OFFICES, Attorneys for Plaintiff, GENEVA LEMA.

ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE IN PART

GARY AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS:

Plaintiff Geneva Lema ("Plaintiff") brings several causes of action against Defendant Modesto Hospitality, LLC ("Defendant") with regard to the accessibility of a subject hotel where she alleges she stayed, including under the Federal American's with Disabilities Act and California Disabled Right Act. Defendant contends that it did not violate any law, rule, or regulation; and Defendant contends that the subject hotel complied with all access requirements under State and Federal law.

However, in an effort to avoid the expense of protracted litigation, the Parties are continuing to attempt to settle this matter early in good faith. In furtherance of that purpose, Defendant granted Plaintiff's Counsel and experts an opportunity to inspect the subject hotel on March 2, 2011.

It is now Plaintiff Counsel's intent to present a settlement demand, including proposed architectural remediations to provide to Defendant. However, due to the press of business, Plaintiff's Counsel still requires additional time to prepare the settlement demand, including obtaining his expert reports.

In an effort continue their good faith attempts to settle this matter and to keep costs and fees down, the Parties request, and jointly stipulate to, additional time to finish their good faith settlement discussions in the form of a continuance of the scheduling conference of sixty (60) days. The intention is to allow Plaintiff enough time to present a settlement demand to Defendant, and to allow Defendant an opportunity to respond to that settlement demand; and to allow time for settlement discussions. Thereafter, the Parties may also seek an early Settlement Conference to help resolve outstanding issues.

ORDER

The parties' stipulation is GRANTED IN PART. The scheduling conference is hereby continued to July 7, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. No further stipulations to continue the scheduling conference will be entertained. The parties SHALL file a joint scheduling report one week prior to the scheduling conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.