Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01480/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01480-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

Request for Continuance of Rule 26 Conference, and Status Conference Regarding Magistrate Consent,

and [Proposed] Order Granting Thereof 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DANIEL MALAKAUSKAS, SBN 265903

P.O. Box 7006

Stockton, CA 95267

Telephone: (866) 790-2242

Facsimile: (888) 802-2440

Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 

FRESNO DIVISION

CYNTHIA HOPSON,

PLAINTIFF,

 

 v.

FRANK SANDERS, as an individual, and

doing business as “Grizzly Rock Café & 

Grill”, KHATRI BROTHERS, a general 

partnership, ANIL KHATRI, as an 

individual, and as a partner of the Khatri 

Brothers Partnership

and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

 DEFENDANTS.

CASE NO.: 1:15-cv-1480-MJS

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF 

RULE 26 CONFERENCE, OR STATUS 

CONFERENCE REGARDING 

MAGISTRATE CONSENT AND ORDER 

GRANTING THEREOF

Date: March 24th, 2016

Time: 11:00 a.m.

Courtroom: 6

Judge: Michael J. Seng

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that Plaintiff, CYNTHIA HOSPON, through her attorney, 

Daniel Malakauskas, Esq. requests that the Rule 26 conference, and Status Conference regarding 

Magistrate Cosent, scheduled for February 24th, 2016 is continued sixty (60) days to allow the 

Defendants time to Answer, and for the parties to meet and confer.

I, DANIEL MALAKAUSKAS, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 

State of California that the following is true and correct:

Case 1:15-cv-01480-MJS Document 14 Filed 03/23/16 Page 1 of 4
Request for Continuance of Rule 26 Conference, and Status Conference Regarding Magistrate Consent,

and [Proposed] Order Granting Thereof 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1. I am an attorney representing the plaintiff, Cynthia Hopson, in this lawsuit. I am 

competent to testify and am personally familiar with the facts of this case. I became personally 

familiar with the facts of this case either through my own personal knowledge, information my 

client and, or, private investigator, and, or, process server, and, or, records researcher gave me, or 

be reviewing the Court’s case file. If called to testify, I would testify as follows:

2. On September 30th, 2015, I filed the complaint that initiated this action.

3. On September 30th, 2015, the Court set a Rule 26 Status Conference for January 

7

th, 2016.

4. At my request, on December 29th, 2015, the Court continued the Rule 26 Status 

Conference from January 7th, 2016 until February 11th, 2016.

5. After serving the Defendants, BAR F PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED, 

KHATRI BROTHERS, and ANIL KHATRI, I was contacted by attorney Mark R. Mittelman. 

Mr. Mittelman informed me that he represented the Defendants. However, Mr. Mittelman stated 

that BAR F PRODUCTS INCORPORATED was not the proper tenant and that FRANK 

SANDERS was the proper tenant.

6. We discussed amending the complaint.

7. After our discussions Mr. Mittelman agreed to accept service on behalf of all of 

the Defendants in the Amended Complaint after it was filed.

8. I filed the Amended Complaint on February 4th, 2016. I also filed a notice of 

dismissal as to Defendant, BAR F PRODUCTS INCORPORATED, on February 4th, 2016. 

While I filed the Amended Complaint, via the CM/ECF filing system, I chose the tab to add a 

new party and put in the proper information.

9. On February 5th, 2016, the Court continued the Rule 26 Conference and the 

Conference regarding Magistrate Consent to March 24th, 2016, at 11:00 a.m.

Case 1:15-cv-01480-MJS Document 14 Filed 03/23/16 Page 2 of 4
Request for Continuance of Rule 26 Conference, and Status Conference Regarding Magistrate Consent,

and [Proposed] Order Granting Thereof 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10. I waited for the court to reissue a summons with FRANK SANDERS listed as a 

Defendant.

11. I was perplexed that the court did not reissue a summons, as in the past, whenever 

I chose the tab to add a new party and put in the proper information, when filing an Amended 

Complaint, the court would automatically reissue a new summons several days later.

12. After not hearing from the court and not receiving a newly issued summons, on 

March 3rd, 2016, I called the CM/ECF help desk for the Eastern District and inquired as to the 

status of the summons that was to be re-issued.

13. As a result of my phone call, the court issued a new summons on March 3rd, 2016.

14. After receiving the newly issued summons, I subsequently sent to Mr. Mittelman, 

via mail: 1) Notice of a Lawsuit and Request for Defendants to Waive the Service of Summons; 

2) two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons by Defendants; 3) Summons on Anil Khatri 

and Khatri Brothers; 4) Summons on Frank Sanders; 5) First Amended Complaint; 6) Civil Case 

Cover Sheet; 7) Order Setting Case to Sacramento Judge; 8) Notice of Availability—Voluntary 

Resolution Dispute; 9) Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge and Consent Form; 10) Order 

Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference; 11) ADA disclosures and Access Litigation Notices; 

12) and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the Waiver of Service of Summons by 

Defendants to the Plaintiff.

15. Although, Mr. Mittelman has previously agreed to waive service on his clients, 

even under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3), Mr. Mittelman has sixty (60) days to file an Answer to the 

First Amended Complaint.

16. Therefore, I ask that this court continue the Rule 26 Conference and Status 

Conference regarding Magistrate Consent, by sixty days, so that Mr. Mittelman, on behalf of his 

clients, may answer the Amended Complaint and that the parties may meet and confer.

Case 1:15-cv-01480-MJS Document 14 Filed 03/23/16 Page 3 of 4
Request for Continuance of Rule 26 Conference, and Status Conference Regarding Magistrate Consent,

and [Proposed] Order Granting Thereof 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: March 17th, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

/s/Daniel Malakauskas_________________

By: Daniel Malakauskas,

Attorney for Plaintiff

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Rule 26 Scheduling Conference, and the Status 

Conference regarding Magistrate Consent, is continued from March 24th, 2016, at 11:00 a.m., 

until May 26, 2016, at 10:30 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01480-MJS Document 14 Filed 03/23/16 Page 4 of 4