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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NGOC LAM CHE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN JOSE/EVERGREEN COMMUNITY 

COLLEGE DISTRICT FOUNDATION, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00381-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE

RELIEF EXTENDING MEDIATION 

DEADLINE, OR COMPELLING

COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL 

ORDER 56 ¶ 4; GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXCEED 

PAGE LIMITS; AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 

SANCTIONS

[Re: ECF 43, 44, 45]

Defendants Imwalle Properties, Inc. and San Jose Evergreen Community College District 

have filed an administrative motion (ECF 43) to extend the October 23, 2017 deadline for 

mediation based on Plaintiff Ngoc Lam Che’s asserted noncompliance with General Order 56 ¶ 4. 

Plaintiff has filed an opposition (ECF 45) which exceeds the five-page limit set forth in Civil 

Local Rule 7-11(b), along with a motion for leave to exceed applicable page limits (ECF 44). In 

his opposition brief, Plaintiff requests that the Court sanction Defendants for failure to comply 

with General Order 56.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Page Limits 

Plaintiff’s motion to exceed page limits is GRANTED, not because the motion has merit 

but because it would be more trouble than it is worth to strike Plaintiff’s overlength brief and 

require Plaintiff to file a replacement brief which conforms with Civil Local Rule 7-11(b).

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions violates this Court’s Civil Local Rules, which require that 

“[a]ny motion for sanctions, regardless of the sources of authority invoked,” must be separately 

filed and noticed for hearing. See Civ. L.R. 7-8. Accordingly, the request is DENIED.
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

Defendants’ Administrative Motion

Defendants’ administrative motion and Plaintiffs’ opposition thereto indicate that each side 

believes that the other has failed to comply with the requirements of General Order 56 ¶ 4. That 

provision requires the parties to meet and confer regarding settlement of the action and, in 

particular, to discuss all claimed violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and 

Defendants’ willingness to take corrective action. General Order 56 ¶ 4. Defendants assert that 

Plaintiff has declined to “specify all claimed access violations and the corrective actions requested 

of defendant” as required under General Order 56 ¶ 4. Defendants request that the Court continue 

the October 23, 2017 mediation deadline on the ground that mediation will not be productive 

absent Plaintiff’s identification of all claimed access violations. In opposition, Plaintiff asserts

that he provided Defendants with a settlement demand which listed the claimed access violations, 

and that Defendants did not respond. Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ administrative motion is 

brought solely for purposes of delay.

The Court ORDERS as follows:

(1) Plaintiff SHALL provide Defendants with a written statement, on or before August 

18, 2017, which specifies “all claimed access violations and the corrective actions requested of” 

Defendants. General Order 56 ¶ 4. Such statement shall comply fully with General Order 56 ¶ 4.

(2) Defendants SHALL provide Plaintiff with a written statement, on or before August 

25, 2017, specifying with respect to each claimed violation whether Defendants are “willing to 

undertake the requested corrective actions or [have] an alternate proposal.” General Order 56 ¶ 4. 

If Defendants claim that “any proposed corrective action is not readily achievable under Title III 

or otherwise required by law, [Defendants] shall specify the factual basis for this claim.” Id. Such 

statement shall comply fully with General Order 56 ¶ 4.

(3) The mediation deadline REMAINS October 23, 2017.

Dated: August 11, 2017

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge