Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00330/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00330-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Vacaville
Defendant
Gary Nystrom
Plaintiff
Dale Pfeiffer
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

GARY NYSTROM on behalf of

himself, and on behalf of all

others similarly situated,,

NO. CIV. S 04-0330 MCE PAN

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

CITY OF VACAVILLE and DALE

PFEIFFER, Director of the

Department of Public Works of

the City of Vacaville, or his

successor, in his Official

Capacity,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This is a class action, brought pursuant to both California

state laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42

U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12103 to challenge pedestrian rights of way

afforded within the City of Vacaville to persons with mobility

disabilities. Plaintiff’s initial complaint was filed on

February 17, 2004. By Pretrial (Status) Scheduling Order

Case 2:04-cv-00330-MCE-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/07/05 Page 1 of 3
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

(“Scheduling Order”) dated June 14, 2004, the Court established a

deadline of August 27, 2004 for conducting discovery. Pursuant

to stipulation of the parties, that discovery deadline was

continued on two subsequent occasions, most recently to May 30,

2005. Other deadlines associated with the case were similarly

extended. By Minute Order dated October 20, 2004, the Court

advised the parties that no additional requests to modify the

operative Scheduling Order would be entertained.

The parties have now filed a Joint Motion for Modification

of the Pretrial Scheduling Order on grounds that they are close

to settling the case, and that having to comply with deadlines

for moving the case forward would distract from those ongoing

efforts. Significantly, the parties have attached to their Joint

Motion a twenty-one (21) page Draft Settlement Agreement. They

have explained that not only must outstanding issues relating to

that agreement be finalized, but that the final agreement must

also be submitted to the Vacaville’s City Council for approval. 

The parties have asked for time to effectuate settlement in that

regard without also having to simultaneously litigate the case.

While the Court continues to have a strong interest in

moving this matter forward as expeditiously as possible, and

although it previously indicated that no further extensions would

be forthcoming in view of that interest, the parties have

produced evidence that serious settlement negotiations are

occurring which have a strong likelihood of resolving this

litigation in its entirety. Given that showing, the parties have

shown good cause for modifying the current Scheduling Order and

Case 2:04-cv-00330-MCE-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/07/05 Page 2 of 3
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

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 1

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h).

3

the instant motion is hereby GRANTED. The Court will issue, 1

concurrently with the filing of this Order, an amended Pretrial

(Status) Scheduling Order setting forth, inter alia, the new

deadlines applicable to this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 7, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00330-MCE-EFB Document 20 Filed 09/07/05 Page 3 of 3