Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01785/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01785-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES SANFORD,

NO. CIV. S-05-1785 LKK/GGH

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

VICORP RESTAURANTS, INC; and

HOWE & UNIVERSITY, LLC,

Defendants.

 /

Pending before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss in

the above-captioned case, currently scheduled for January 17, 2006

on the court’s Law and Motion Calendar. Defendants assert that

this matter should be dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement

by which plaintiff knowingly and affirmatively waived any right to

assert the claims alleged in this complaint. The settlement

agreement was executed in the matter of Sanford v. Vicorp

Restaurants, Inc., et al., No. Civ. S-03-374 WBS/PAN, which

allegedly asserted identical claims as those raised in the instant

Case 2:05-cv-01785-WBS -PAN Document 30 Filed 01/10/06 Page 1 of 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

1 Although plaintiff’s counsel claims that he only noticed for

the first time that plaintiff’s original law suit was before Judge

Shubb and not this court, it is not clear to the court whether the

action was refiled for the purpose of obtaining a different Judge

or Magistrate Judge, in which case this matter must be assigned to

Judge Shubb. See L.R. 83-123(d). This court, however, orders

plaintiff to file a formal notice of related cases so that Judge

Shubb may determine whether assignment of the cases to a single

Judge is likely to effect a savings of judicial effort or other

economies. See L.R. 83-123(c). 

2

case. 

Plaintiff’s counsel explains that in preparing his opposition

to the motion to dismiss, he noticed for the first time that

plaintiff’s original lawsuit was before the Honorable William B.

Shubb and not this court. Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he

included this paragraph in his opposition to comply with his duty

to file a notice of related cases pursuant to Local Rule 83-123(b).

Given plaintiff’s counsel belated notice of related cases, the

court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1. The motions to dismiss and for sanctions currently

scheduled in the above-captioned case for January 17, 2006 on this

court’s law and motion calendar are VACATED.

2. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to FILE a formal notice of

related cases within five (5) days of this order in the abovecaptioned case and No. Civ. S-03-0374 WBS/PAN.

1

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 9, 2006

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:05-cv-01785-WBS -PAN Document 30 Filed 01/10/06 Page 2 of 2