Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02173/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02173-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

-1- 

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL. 

U.S.D.C. – Northern District of California – Case No. C 05-02173 MJJ 

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 

Gregory L. Spallas- # 129306 

Kristi A. Nguyen - # 241201 

PHILLIPS, SPALLAS & ANGSTADT LLP

650 California Street, 10th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94108 

Phone: (415) 278-9400 

Fax: (415) 278-9411 

Attorneys for Defendants 

WAL-MART STORES, INC. and 

SUHARD MEHTA 

Paul L. Rein - # 43053 

Patricia Barbosa - # 125865 

Julie McLean - # 215202 

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. REIN 

200 Lakeside Drive, Suite A 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Phone: (510) 832-5001 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

JOSEPH MARKETTE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF THE UNITED STATES 

JOSEPH MARKETTE, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

WAL-MART STORES, INC., SUHARD 

MEHTA; and DOES 2-25, inclusive 

 

 Defendants. 

____ ____________________________ ____

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. C 05-02173 MJJ 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF 

TRIAL 

Current Trial Date: January 16, 2007 

TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES: 

 Plaintiff JOSEPH MARKETTE and Defendants WAL-MART STORES, INC. and 

SUHARD MEHTA, by and through their respective attorneys of record, herein agree and 

stipulate to a continuance of the trial date from January 16, 2007, to June 25, 2007. Good cause 

exists for the continuance as described below. 

Case 3:05-cv-02173-MJJ Document 36 Filed 12/05/2006 Page 1 of 4
 Case 3:05-cv-02173-MJJ Document 37 Filed 12/06/06 Page 1 of 4
-2- 

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL. 

U.S.D.C. – Northern District of California – Case No. C 05-02173 MJJ 

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. This case involves complicated and novel questions of law and fact regarding an 

alleged denial of access to plaintiff of the electric shopping carts at a Wal-Mart store in Union 

City, California. Before meaningful settlement discussions could begin, the parties needed to 

exchange information. Accordingly, the parties scheduled discovery cooperatively, including 

each party taking several depositions of opposing parties and witnesses. 

2. On February 21, 2006, a Case Management Conference was held with Judge 

Jenkins, and trial and pre-trial dates were set. However, Judge Jenkins indicated that these 

dates were not “set in stone” and that the parties could stipulate and request that they be 

changed if they were not convenient. The Court further referred the parties to Chief Magistrate 

Judge James Larson for settlement proceedings. 

3. On August 29, 2006, the earliest date available for Judge Larson and all parties, 

a settlement conference was held with Judge Larson. While significant progress was made 

toward settlement, including an agreement in principle on injunctive relief, the parties were 

unable to reach full settlement of the matter. However, at Judge Larson’s urging, the parties 

agreed to withhold discovery or further litigation work in order to avoid increasing the 

attorney’s fees in the matter, which would make settlement of the case much less likely. Judge 

Larson indicated that he was amenable to continuing to work with the parties toward 

settlement, and all parties and Judge Larson agreed to set a further settlement conference. 

4. The parties attempted to schedule a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge 

James Larson for either November or December 2006, the first dates available on his calendar. 

However, due to conflicts in schedules (including the fact that the holiday season is the busiest 

time of the year for Wal-Mart, making it difficult to free up a representative for settlement 

discussions), the parties were unable to set a date before the year’s end. Judge Larson is 

unavailable for a settlement conference in January 2007, making the earliest possible settlement 

conference date February 2007. 

5. The parties believe that the case has a good chance of settling if the parties are 

able to avoid further litigation work; however, if the parties are forced to begin the extensive 

Case 3:05-cv-02173-MJJ Document 36 Filed 12/05/2006 Page 2 of 4
 Case 3:05-cv-02173-MJJ Document 37 Filed 12/06/06 Page 2 of 4
-3- 

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL. 

U.S.D.C. – Northern District of California – Case No. C 05-02173 MJJ 

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 

pre-trial preparation that would be necessary under the current trial date, the fees and costs 

would quickly spiral out of control, making settlement impossible. 

6. Thus, a continuance of the pre-trial conference and trial would provide the 

parties an opportunity to engage in settlement discussions and possibly avoid unnecessary use 

of the Court’s time, and avoid unnecessary increases in attorney’s fees and costs. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their 

attorneys of record that the trial date be continued to June 25, 2007. The pre-trial conference 

date would accordingly be rescheduled for June 18, 2007. 

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED by and between the parties that (1) all non-expert 

discovery in this matter is closed and (2) all deadlines relating to FRCP 26 disclosures of 

experts and expert reports will also be extended with the new trial date such that initial expert 

disclosures would occur on April 27, 2007, expert reports would be due on or before May 4, 

2007, supplemental experts would be disclosed by May 11 and expert discovery would need to 

be completed by May 25, 2007. 

Dated: December 5, 2006 PHILLIPS, SPALLAS & ANGSTADT LLP 

 /s/ Gregory L. Spallas_______________________ 

 By: Gregory L. Spallas 

 Kristi A. Nguyen 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 WAL-MART STORES, INC. and 

 SUHARD MEHTA 

Dated: December 5, 2006 LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. REIN 

 /s/ Julie McLean______________________ 

 By: Paul L. Rein 

 Patricia Barbosa 

 Julie McLean 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 JOSEPH MARKETTE 

Case 3:05-cv-02173-MJJ Document 36 Filed 12/05/2006 Page 3 of 4
 Case 3:05-cv-02173-MJJ Document 37 Filed 12/06/06 Page 3 of 4
-4- 

STIP. & [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL. 

U.S.D.C. – Northern District of California – Case No. C 05-02173 MJJ 

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 

ORDER

 Pursuant to Stipulation, and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 

that the trial be continued to June 25, 2007, with a pre-trial conference of June 18, 2007 and 

that the deadline for completion of factual discovery is closed, and that all deadlines relating to 

FRCP 26 disclosures of experts and expert reports will also be extended with the new trial date 

such that initial expert disclosures would occur on April 27, 2007, expert reports would be due 

on or before May 4, 2007, supplemental experts would be disclosed by May 11 and expert 

discovery would need to be completed by May 25, 2007. 

Dated: __________ __________________________________ 

 Honorable Martin J. Jenkins 

 U.S. District Court Judge 

 

Case 3:05-cv-02173-MJJ Document 36 Filed 12/05/2006 Page 4 of 4

12 12/6/2006

Case 3:05-cv-02173-MJJ Document 37 Filed 12/06/06 Page 4 of 4