Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03388/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03388-5/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORGANIZATION FOR THE 

ADVANCEMENT OF MINORITIES 

WITH DISABILITIES, et al.,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 04-3388 PJH

v. ORDER

RAMADA LIMITED–DOWNTOWN--

270 7TH STREET, SAN FRANCISCO,

CALIFORNIA 94103, et al.,

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

Before the court is a request by plaintiff to be permitted to attend today’s case

management conference telephonically. As the court cannot accommodate a telephonic

appearance by one party, the request is DENIED. However, in view of the injury suffered by

plaintiffs’ counsel, the case management conference is CONTINUED to November 17, 2005,

at 2:30 p.m. Given plaintiff’s counsel failure to appear in a timely fashion at the first case

management conference, this will be the final continuance permitted.

The court is further concerned about the way this case is being litigated by plaintiffs. 

The parties were clearly ordered to file a joint case management statement, but instead filed

separate statements. Defense counsel represents that she attempted to meet and confer with

plaintiffs’ counsel to accomplish this end, but received no response. Plaintiffs’ case

management statement contains no explanation at all concerning why it was not jointly

prepared. 

The court is particularly concerned given the prior orders that an amended complaint

be filed, that all previously named defendants who were not named in the amended complaint

would be dismissed, and that all defendants must be served within ten days of the filing of the

Case 4:04-cv-03388-PJH Document 38 Filed 10/27/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

amended complaint. The docket reflects that no dismissals have been filed. The first

amended complaint (“FAC”), entitled by plaintiffs’ the First Civil Complaint, names three

defendants–Ramada Limited, Shantaben Patel and Icharambhai Patel. An answer was filed

by Shantaben Patel and Icharambhai Patel. No answer was filed by Ramada Limited nor

does the docket reflect that it has been served. Although the FAC names only these three

defendants, for some reason plaintiffs’ case management statement continues to list other

defendants who were previously named in the now superceded original complaint.

Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

The parties shall meet and confer and prepare a joint case management statement

which shall address the court’s concerns set forth above and which must be filed no later than

November 10, 2005. A failure to participate in the joint preparation shall result in monetary

sanctions. Additionally, again, all defendants must be served by November 11, 2005 or they

will be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2005

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-03388-PJH Document 38 Filed 10/27/05 Page 2 of 2