Filed: Nov. 18, 2013
Latest Update: Nov. 18, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE HIS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB, Senior District Judge. WHEREAS, Plaintiff, Robert Kalani ("Plaintiff"), seeks to amend his complaint to allege additional access barriers which relate to his disability which were identified at a site inspection of the subject property by Plaintiff, which took place on September 27, 2013; WHEREAS, the Ninth Circuit both urges and requires Plaintiff to identify in his complaint
Summary: STIPULATION GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE HIS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB, Senior District Judge. WHEREAS, Plaintiff, Robert Kalani ("Plaintiff"), seeks to amend his complaint to allege additional access barriers which relate to his disability which were identified at a site inspection of the subject property by Plaintiff, which took place on September 27, 2013; WHEREAS, the Ninth Circuit both urges and requires Plaintiff to identify in his complaint a..
More
STIPULATION GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE HIS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, Senior District Judge.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff, Robert Kalani ("Plaintiff"), seeks to amend his complaint to allege additional access barriers which relate to his disability which were identified at a site inspection of the subject property by Plaintiff, which took place on September 27, 2013;
WHEREAS, the Ninth Circuit both urges and requires Plaintiff to identify in his complaint all barriers identified which relate to his disability. 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);
WHEREAS, the Parties have not commenced discovery, other than the inspection of the subject property by Plaintiff;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has not unduly delayed the amendment, does not bring it in bad faith, the amendment is not futile, and such amendment does not prejudice defendants Highway 88 and 99 Land Company, a Limited Partnership; and Ernest A. Federico dba Perko's Cafe ("Defendants"), nor does the amendment in any way change the nature of the action;
WHEREAS, the amendment will not modify any date or deadline fixed by the Court's Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order dated August 15, 2013 (ECF No. 21) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4);
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff and Defendants, through their respective attorneys of record, that Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that Plaintiff file his First Amended Complaint within five (5) calendar days of the Court's Order permitting such filing, and that Defendants' responses thereto shall be due as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
The Parties having so stipulated and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff file his First Amended Complaint, a copy of which was filed with the Parties' stipulation, within five (5) calendar days of the date this Order is filed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' response thereto shall be filed within the time required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
