Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01707/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01707-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

---

1

18cv1707-GPC (NLS)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRIS LANGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRAUENBERGER PROPERTY 

MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18cv1707-GPC (NLS)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO 

CONTINUE EARLY NEUTRAL 

EVALUATION CONFERENCE;

(2) DENYING JOINT MOTION TO 

EXCUSE PERSONAL 

ATTENDANCE

[ECF No. 21]

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to continue the Early Neutral 

Evaluation Conference (“ENE”), currently set for February 4, 2019. ECF No. 21. The 

Court previously granted one extension request, where the parties requested a 

continuance because Plaintiff was planning to file an amended answer to substitute out

Defendants Tammy Nguyen and Joseph Nguyen, who are no longer tenants at the subject 

property. ECF Nos. 12-13. Subsequently, the parties filed a joint motion to amend the 

complaint, and were granted permission to file the amended complaint, naming new 

Defendants Richard Reissler and Clara Reissler as tenants of the subject property. ECF 

Case 3:18-cv-01707-GPC-NLS Document 22 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv1707-GPC (NLS)

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

Nos. 14, 15, 17. However, it appears that the two new Defendants have not yet been 

served, and therefore, have not answered. ECF No. 21 at 1-2. Thus, the parties request 

another continuance because they believe having a settlement conference without the new 

parties present would not be productive. Id. at 2. 

Since it appears that the new Defendants are significant parties to this action

affecting settlement potential, the Court GRANTS the motion and RESETS the ENE for 

March 26, 2019 at 2:30 p.m. to take place in the Chambers of Magistrate Judge Nita L. 

Stormes, Carter-Keep United States Courthouse, 333 West Broadway, Suite 1210, San 

Diego, California 92101.

1

In addition, since several weeks have already passed since the

amended complaint was filed and the summons was issued (see ECF Nos. 17, 19), to 

avoid further delay, the Court sets a deadline of February 8, 2019 for Plaintiff to serve 

the new Defendants. Plaintiff is also ordered to serve a copy of this order on the new 

Defendants. 

In light of the prior extension given to the parties on the first ENE, if the parties 

have not yet met and conferred at the subject property, no later than March 12, 2019, 

counsel for the parties, and any unrepresented parties, must meet and confer in person at 

the subject premises regarding settlement of (1) the alleged premise violations, and (2) 

damages, costs and attorney’s fees. Plaintiff’s counsel is responsible to arrange the 

conference. The meet and confer obligation cannot be satisfied by telephone or the 

exchange of letters. No later than March 19, 2019, counsel for all parties shall lodge 

with Magistrate Judge Stormes’ chambers a joint statement no longer than two (2) pages, 

certifying that the required in-person conference between counsel took place and setting 

forth the results of the meet and confer and the issues remaining to be discussed at the 

 

1 The Court’s Chamber Rules require all named parties, all counsel, and any other 

person(s) [e.g. insurance adjusters] whose authority is required to negotiate and enter into 

a full and binding settlement to appear in person at the ENE. See Judge Stormes Civil 

Case Procedures § IV. 

Case 3:18-cv-01707-GPC-NLS Document 22 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv1707-GPC (NLS)

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

ENE.

Finally, the parties also request permission for Defendant Frauenberger Property 

Management LLC’s managing member, who lives in Hawaii, to attend the newly set 

ENE telephonically. Distance of travel alone does not constitute extraordinary 

circumstances for which the Court excuses personal attendance at the ENE. See Judge 

Stormes Civil Case Procedures § IV.B (“The Court will not grant requests to excuse a 

required party from personally appearing absent ‘extraordinary circumstances.’ Distance 

of travel or expense alone do not constitute ‘extraordinary circumstances.’”). Defendant 

has not put forth any other reason for this request. Thus, the Court DENIES the request 

to excuse personal appearance at the ENE at this time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01707-GPC-NLS Document 22 Filed 02/01/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3