Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-06025/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-06025-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

Stipulation And [Proposed] Order For Enlargment Of Time

SIDNEY J. COHEN, ESQ., State Bar No. 39023

SIDNEY J. COHEN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

427 Grand Avenue

Oakland, CA 94610

Telephone: (510) 893-6682

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CAROLYN MARTIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROLYN MARTIN

Plaintiff,

V. 

JAD SAN PABLO LLC;

and DOES 1-25, Inclusive, 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. C 09-06025 CRB

Civil Rights

STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

FOR ENLARGEMENT 

OF TIME TO APRIL 30, 

2010 TO CONDUCT 

“MEET AND CONFER”

(Local Rule 6-2)

Case 3:09-cv-06025-CRB Document 10 Filed 04/22/10 Page 1 of 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

Stipulation And [Proposed] Order For Enlargment Of Time -1-

STIPULATION

Plaintiff Carolyn Martin, by and through her attorney, and Defendant JAD

SAN PABLO LLC , by and through its attorney, stipulate to an enlargement of

time from April 16, 2010 to April 30, 2010 to conduct the “meet and confer”

required by paragraph 4 of General Order 56 and, for the reasons stated in the

declaration of Sidney J. Cohen set forth below, request that the Court order an

enlargement to the April 30, 2010 date.

Date: 4/16/10 SIDNEY J. COHEN

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

/s/ Sidney J. Cohen

 

 SIDNEY J. COHEN

 Attorney for Plaintiff Carolyn Martin

Date: 4/16/10 THE DAVIS LAW FIRM

/s/ Marguerite E. Meade

 

Marguerite E. Meade

Attorneys for Defendant JAD San Pablo

LLC

DECLARATION OF SIDNEY J. COHEN

I, Sidney J. Cohen, declare as follows:

1. I am counsel for Plaintiff Carolyn Martin in this action. I am an

attorney in good standing and licensed to practice in the courts of California, in

the United States District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, and Central Districts,

in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and in the United

States Supreme Court. If called upon to testify, I would testify as follows:

2. On April 2, 2010 the parties, their counsel, and their consultants

 attended the joint site inspection required by paragraph 4 of General Order 56.

3. On April 12, 2010 plaintiff’s consultant completed his 44page 

Report, which identifies each of the 90 barriers to access which plaintiff asserts

Case 3:09-cv-06025-CRB Document 10 Filed 04/22/10 Page 2 of 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

Stipulation And [Proposed] Order For Enlargment Of Time -2-

are present at the property and premises which is the subject of the lawsuit which

sets forth the state and federal regulations for each alleged barrier which plaintiff

claims requires remediation work, and which sets forth the scope of work to

remove each alleged barrier which plaintiff asserts is required to bring the

property and premises into compliance with the federal and state regulations for

access.

4. Because of the parties’, counsels’, and consultants’ conflicting

schedules, and because of the time required for the preparation of the Report by

plaintiff’s consultant and the time required for review of the Report by

defendant’s consultant, it has not been possible to schedule the “meet and confer”

to take place by the April 16, 2010 deadline. 

5. There here has been one modification made to the deadlines

imposed by statute, rule of court, or by the Court in this Action. The modification

was a Stipulation to extend the time for defendant to respond to the complaint.

9 With the exception of the April 16, 2010 deadline to hold the “meet

and confer,” which is the deadline that is the subject of this request for an

enlargement of time, the extension of the deadline to April 30, 2010 to hold the

“meet and confer in the case will not effect any time lines or deadlines

established by statute, rule of court, or the Court in this Action.

11. For the reasons stated above, the parties are by this stipulation 

requesting that the Court extend the meet and confer deadline from April 16,

2010 to April 30, 2010.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California

that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on April 16, 2010 in the City of Oakland, California.

/s/ Sidney J. Cohen

________________________

Sidney J. Cohen

Case 3:09-cv-06025-CRB Document 10 Filed 04/22/10 Page 3 of 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

Stipulation And [Proposed] Order For Enlargment Of Time -3-

ORDER ENLARGING TIME TO CONDUCT MEDIATION

1. Upon the stipulated request made by the parties in this Action, the

Court finds good cause to enlarge the “meet and confer” deadline from April 15,

2010 to April 30, 2010. 

2. The Court orders that the date by which the parties are to conduct the

“meet and confer” is enlarged from April 15, 2010 to April 30, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

April 21, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:09-cv-06025-CRB Document 10 Filed 04/22/10 Page 4 of 4