Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06684/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06684-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barcelino Continental Corp.
Defendant
Samuel Love
Plaintiff

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL LOVE,

Plaintiff,

v.

BARCELINO CONTINENTAL CORP.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-06684-JSC 

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF 

PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL 

RULE 7-11; DEFENDANT’S 

COUNTER MOTIONS TO STRIKE 

AND FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Plaintiff’s administrative motion in this ADA case seeks an order waiving the requirement 

under the Northern District’s General Order 56 that settlement conferences must be conducted inperson, due to “the national coronavirus emergency” and the resulting shelter-in-place orders 

issued by “San Francisco, Marin, San Mateo, Contra Costa, Alameda, and Santa Clara Counties on 

March 16, 2020.” (Dkt. No. 16 at 2-3.) Defendant opposes the motion based on Plaintiff’s 

counsel’s conduct during a January 31, 2020 settlement conference, and also moves both “to strike 

hearsay statements” in Plaintiff’s motion and for attorney’s fees and costs associated with 

Plaintiff’s “violation(s) of General Order 56.” (Dkt. No. 17 at 1.) After careful consideration of 

the parties’ briefing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s administrative motion because it fails to 

comply with Civil Local Rule 7-11(a), which requires that such motions include “either a 

stipulation under Civil L.R. 7-12 or . . . a declaration that explains why a stipulation could not be 

obtained.” Plaintiff’s motion includes neither. Further, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW 

CAUSE as to why he should not pay Defendant’s attorney’s fees “incurred in attending and

participating in a site inspection and settlement conference . . . on January 31, 2020 in San Mateo, 

CA and in responding to [P]laintiff’s [administrative] motion.” (See Dkt. No. 17 at 6.) 

The Northern District’s General Order 56 sets forth the procedural requirements for ADA 

Case 3:19-cv-06684-JSC Document 18 Filed 03/26/20 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

litigation. See generally General Order No. 56, Americans With Disabilities Act Access Litigation 

(N.D. Cal.). General Order 56 requires a joint site inspection of the premises at issue and 

provides, in pertinent part: “The joint site inspection shall be followed by an in-person settlement 

meeting. The settlement meeting may occur at the same time and location as the joint site 

inspection or may be scheduled separately, but not later than 35 days after the joint site 

inspection.” Id. at ¶ 8(a). Further: “Participation in the settlement meeting cannot be satisfied by 

telephone, video conference, or exchanging letters, emails, or texts. The parties themselves and 

their counsel must be personally present.” Id. at ¶ 8(b) (emphasis added). Under the scheduling 

order in this case, the parties were required to complete the joint site inspection of the premises, 

“with or without meet-and-confer regarding settlement,” by January 31, 2020. (Dkt. No. 5 at 1.) 

There is no dispute that the parties conducted the requisite site inspection and a settlement 

conference on that date. 

Defendant’s counsel, Eric Johnson, attests that Plaintiff’s counsel, Amanda Seabock,

confirmed weeks prior to the January 31, 2020 site inspection and settlement conference that all 

parties were required to attend in accordance with General Order 56. (Id. at 9 ¶ 3.) Mr. Johnson 

attests that on January 31, 2020, he traveled from Seattle, Washington, Defendant’s owner and 

President (Sharam Sarei) traveled from San Rafael, California, and Defendant’s expert (Richard J. 

Halloran) traveled from San Francisco, California, to attend the scheduled inspection and 

settlement conference in San Mateo, California. (Id. at 9 ¶ 4.) However, Plaintiff “was absent 

without excuse” and the attorney who was present on Plaintiff’s behalf, Jennifer McAllister, has 

not formally appeared in this action. (Id. at 9-10 ¶¶ 6-9.) 

Mr. Johnson attests that, despite Plaintiff’s assertion otherwise, neither he nor his client 

waived the requirement under General Order 56 that all parties and counsel personally appear at 

the settlement conference. (Id. at 10 ¶ 9.) Simply put, Mr. Johnson’s declaration indicates that 

Defendant complied with the requirements under General Order 56 regarding the January 31 site 

inspection and settlement conference and that Plaintiff did not. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall 

respond to this Order by April 2, 2020 and explain why he should not pay Defendant’s attorney’s 

fees incurred in attending the settlement conference and responding to Plaintiff’s administrative 

Case 3:19-cv-06684-JSC Document 18 Filed 03/26/20 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

motion. In particular, Plaintiff must explain: (1) whether the parties agreed in advance that the 

settlement conference would be held in conjunction with the site inspection on January 31, 2020; 

and (2) the basis for Plaintiff’s assertion that Mr. Johnson waived the requirement that Plaintiff 

personally appear at the settlement conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2020

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-06684-JSC Document 18 Filed 03/26/20 Page 3 of 3