THIRD STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME and TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR JOINT SITE 

INSPECTION; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Page 1 

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 

Zachary M. Best, SBN 166035 

MISSION LAW FIRM, A.P.C. 

332 North Second Street 

San Jose, California 95112 

Telephone (408) 298-2000 

Facsimile (408) 298-6046 

E-mail: service@mission.legal 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Francisca Moralez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRANCISCA MORALEZ, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS dba FOOD 

MAXX #482, et al., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 3:17-cv-00140-RS 

THIRD STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME FOR BOTH DEFENDANTS TO 

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; and 

STIPULATION TO EXTEND DEADLINE 

TO COMPLETE JOINT SITE 

INSPECTION REQUIRED BY GENERAL 

ORDER 56; [PROPOSED] ORDER

 

 
THIRD STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME and TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR JOINT SITE 

INSPECTION; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Page 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 

Plaintiff, Francisca Moralez (“Plaintiff”), and Defendants, Save Mart Supermarkets dba 

Food Maxx #482 and RMP Properties, LLC (collectively “Defendants,” and together with 

Plaintiff, “the Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. This action arises out of Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants denied her full and 

equal access to their public accommodation on account of her disability in violation of Title III 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and parallel California law. Plaintiff seeks 

injunctive relief under federal and California law, as well as damages under California law. 

This matter therefore proceeds under this district’s General Order 56 which governs ADA 

access matters. 

2. The Court issued a Scheduling Order under General Order 56 which requires that 

the Parties conduct a joint site inspection of the subject property on or before April 26, 2017. 

(ECF No. 4.) 

3. Plaintiff and Defendants have been working together extensively and 

cooperatively to seek an informal resolution of this matter. To this end, Defendants have 

provided an accessibility report from a California Certified Access Specialist with regards to the 

interior of the Food Maxx business, which report may provide a basis for resolving Plaintiff’s 

equitable claims regarding the interior of the property. 

4. Plaintiff and Defendants are cautiously optimistic that a resolution of the matter 

as to Defendant Save Mart Supermarkets will therefore be reached shortly which will allow a 

dismissal with prejudice of Save Mart Supermarkets from this action. 

5. Plaintiff and Defendants only recently learned that there is another entity who 

may have liability for Plaintiff’s claims as to the exterior of the subject property, but who is not 

yet a named party. Plaintiff and Defendants are securing the participation of that entity which 

they believe is necessary in order to reach a full and complete settlement of Plaintiff’s exterior 

claims, and an informal resolution is being explored with that entity. 

6. The Parties wish additional time to explore settlement without the need to file 

responsive pleadings, conduct the joint site inspection, or to amend the Complaint to add the 
THIRD STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME and TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR JOINT SITE 

INSPECTION; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Page 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 

newly discovered entity, in order to minimize the expenditure of attorneys’ fees and costs given 

that Defendants and the as yet unnamed party have either provided, or expressed a willingness 

to provide, an access report in an effort to resolve Plaintiff’s equitable claims regarding the 

exterior of the subject property. 

7. The Parties believe that an additional 35 days within which to conduct the site 

inspection will afford them enough time to fully exhaust their informal settlement efforts 

without the expense of conducting a joint site inspection, responding to the Complaint, or 

amending the Complaint to add a new party. Should the Parties be unable to reach an informal 

resolution of Plaintiff’s claims within that time, they will then proceed with the site inspection, 

responsive pleadings, and amendment of the Complaint. 

8. Accordingly, the Parties stipulate to extend the deadline for Defendants to 

respond to Plaintiff’s complaint, and for the Parties to conduct the joint site inspection, to May 

31, 2017. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: April 14, 2017 MISSION LAW FIRM, A.P.C. 

 /s/ Zachary M. Best 

 Zachary M. Best 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

 Francisca Moralez 

Dated: April 14, 2017 LANG RICHERT & PATCH 

 /s/ Charles Trudung Taylor 

 Charles Trudung Taylor 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 Save Mart Supermarkets dba Food Maxx #482 and 

 RMP Properties, LLC 
THIRD STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME and TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR JOINT SITE 

INSPECTION; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Page 4 

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 

ORDER 

 The Parties having so stipulated and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ responsive pleading deadline is extended 

to May 31, 2017. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for the Parties to complete the joint site 

inspection is extended to May 31, 2017, with all dates triggered by that deadline continued 

accordingly. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

 RICHARD SEEBORG 

 United States District Judge 

4/14/17