Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

GREEN v. ASHLAN PARK CENTER, LLC, 1:14-CV-01824-MJS. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150513742 Visitors: 8
Filed: May 12, 2015
Latest Update: May 12, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER THEREON MICHAEL J. SENG , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, Lawrence Green ("Plaintiff"), and Defendants, Ashlan Park Center, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and Koroosh Zaghi dba Arby's #5524 ("Defendants," and together with Plaintiff, "the Parties"), together request that the Court amend the Scheduling Order as follows: WHEREAS, on March 24, 2015, the Court issued a Scheduling Order (Dkt. 20) ("Scheduling Order"), which sets a deadline
More

STIPULATION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER; ORDER THEREON

Plaintiff, Lawrence Green ("Plaintiff"), and Defendants, Ashlan Park Center, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and Koroosh Zaghi dba Arby's #5524 ("Defendants," and together with Plaintiff, "the Parties"), together request that the Court amend the Scheduling Order as follows:

WHEREAS, on March 24, 2015, the Court issued a Scheduling Order (Dkt. 20) ("Scheduling Order"), which sets a deadline to amend the pleadings of May 22, 2015;

WHEREAS, on April 1, 2015, Plaintiff properly noticed a site inspection of the subject Arby's #5524 ("the Facility") to take place on May 4, 2015, following attempts to coordinate the date of the inspection with Defendants;

WHEREAS, on April 30, 2015 at approximately 5:00 p.m., Plaintiff was served via email with an objection by the named tenant defendant, Koroosh Zaghi, on the basis that he was not the tenant at this location, and had no authority to permit the inspection because he does not own or operate the Facility. Instead, he advised that Little Rock Management, Inc. (of which he is a principal) is the tenant in control of the Facility. This was the first time that Plaintiff was advised that this entity was the proper tenant and operator of the Facility;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff advised the landlord defendant, Ashlan Park Center, LLC, that it was obligated to have ensured with the tenant that the site inspection would go forward;

WHEREAS, Ashlan Park Center, LLC allowed the inspection to go forward as to the common areas of the shopping center and notified the principal of Little Rock Management, Koroosh Zaghi, on May 1, 2015 that an inspection was being requested of the interior of Arby's on May 4, 2015. Ashlan Park Center, LLC did not believe that it had authority to allow an interior inspection of Arby's absent the consent of the tenant but also indicated that it had no objection;

WHEREAS, on May 4, 2015, an inspection was conducted by Plaintiff's consultant of the exterior of the Facility, but he was denied access to the interior by Little Rock Management, Inc.'s onsite management staff;

WHEREAS, Defendant Koroosh Zaghi asserts that as he is not the tenant or operator of the Facility and cannot provide consent to an inspection of the property, therefore no inspection can take place until Little Rock Management, Inc. is named;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff contends he is unable to amend his complaint to include additional barriers to his full and equal access which may exist at the Facility, as Plaintiff asserts is urged and required by the Ninth Circuit (Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 944 (9th Cir. 2011); Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903, 909 (9th Cir. 2011)), until his consultant is permitted to inspect the interior of the Facility;

WHEREAS, counsel for Defendants have indicated that they will stipulate to the filing of an amended complaint which will solely add the newly discovered business owner, after which Plaintiff will need time to effect service of the amended complaint on the new defendant, re-notice and conduct his site inspection, and thereafter await his consultant's report and amend his complaint to add any additional barriers identified during the inspection of the Facility;

WHEREAS, Ashlan Park Center, LLC contends that all readily achievable charges to the common area parking have been completed. Plaintiff disagrees with this contention.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES, THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE to amend the Scheduling Order as follows:

Event Current Date New Date Deadline to amend pleadings May 22, 2015 September 4, 2015 Non-expert discovery cutoff October 23, 2015 February 5, 2016 Expert discovery cutoff January 15, 2016 May 13, 2016 Expert disclosures November 6, 2015 March 18, 2016 Rebuttal expert disclosures November 20, 2015 April 1, 2016 Non-dispositive motion filing January 15, 2016 May 13, 2016 deadline Dispositive motion filing February 19, 2016 June 24, 2016 deadline Dispositive motion hearing March 11, 2016 July 22, 2016 Pretrial conference April 15, 2016 August 19, 2016 Jury Trial May 24, 2016 September 27, 2016

All other requirements set forth in the Scheduling Order relating to the above shall remain unchanged.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

The Parties having so stipulated and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Scheduling Order issued March 24, 2015 (Dkt. 20) is hereby amended as follows:

Event Current Date New Date Last day to amend complaint May 22, 2015 September 4, 2015 Non-expert discovery cutoff October 23, 2015 February 5, 2016 Expert discovery cutoff January 15, 2016 May 13, 2016 Expert disclosures November 6, 2015 March 18, 2016 Rebuttal expert disclosures November 20, 2015 April 1, 2016 Non-dispositive motion filing January 15, 2016 May 13, 2016 deadline Dispositive motion filing February 19, 2016 June 24, 2016 deadline Dispositive motion hearing March 11, 2016 July 22, 2016 Pretrial conference April 15, 2016 August 19, 2016 Jury Trial May 24, 2016 September 27, 2016

All other requirements set forth in the Scheduling Order relating to the above shall remain unchanged.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer