Moore v. D.W. Investments, Inc. et al
Filing
24
ORDER AFTER SCHEDUILNG CONFERENCE, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 6/13/2011. (Further Scheduling Conference set for 9/9/2011 at 8:15AM in Courtroom 3 (OWW) before Judge Oliver Wanger.)(Gaumnitz, R)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
RONALD MOORE,
10
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
v.
D.W. INVESTMENTS, INC., dba
WIENERSCHNITZEL #301; GALARDI
GROUP REALTY CORP.,
14
Defendants.
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:10-cv-1966 OWW SKO
ORDER AFTER SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE
Further Scheduling
Conference: 9/9/11 8:15
Ctrm. 3
16
17
I.
18
19
Date of Scheduling Conference.
June 9, 2011.
II.
Appearances Of Counsel.
20
Tanya E. Moore, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.
21
Keith M. White, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant DW
22
Investments, Inc. dba Wienerschnitzel #301.
23
Ryan M. McNamara, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant
24
Galardi Group Realty Corp.
25
III.
26
Summary of Pleadings.
1.
This is a civil rights action by Plaintiff Ronald Moore
27
(hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) for alleged
28
discrimination at the building, structure, facility, complex,
1
1
property, land, development, and/or surrounding business complex
2
known as: Wienerschnitzel, located at 1768 West Shaw, Fresno,
3
California (hereinafter referred to as the “Restaurant”).
4
Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive and declaratory relief,
5
attorneys’ fees and costs, against D.W. Investments, Inc. and
6
Galardi Group Realty Corp. (hereinafter collectively referred to
7
as “Defendants”).
8
IV.
9
Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.
1.
Plaintiff reserves the right to amend his complaint
10
after he has had the property and facility inspected by a
11
Certified Access Specialist.
12
2.
The parties propose the deadline for amendments be
13
August 26, 2011.
14
V.
Factual Summary.
15
A.
16
Proceedings.
17
1.
18
Defendant DW Investments, Inc. dba Wienerschnitzel
#301 is a sub-tenant to Galardi Group Realty Corp.
19
20
Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further
2.
Galardi Group Realty Corp. is a master tenant to
Cox, the owner of the underlying real property.
21
3.
The owner of the real property, Cox, has resolved
22
all issues with the Plaintiff and will no longer participate in
23
the lawsuit.
24
4.
25
located at 1768 West Shaw, Fresno, California.
26
B.
27
28
The Restaurant that is the subject of this case is
Contested Facts.
1.
All remaining facts are in dispute.
///
2
1
VI.
2
Legal Issues.
A.
3
Uncontested.
1.
Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
4
1342 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
5
supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
6
7
2.
10
3.
The parties agree that as to supplemental claims,
if jurisdiction exists, the substantive law of the State of
California provides the rule of decision.
11
B.
12
13
Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and
(c).
8
9
Plaintiffs invoke
Contested.
1.
All remaining legal issues are disputed.
VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.
14
1.
The parties have not consented to transfer the
15
case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.
16
VIII.
17
1.
Corporate Identification Statement.
Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in
18
this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent
19
corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the
20
party's equity securities.
21
its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the
22
statement within a reasonable time of any change in the
23
information.
24
IX.
25
26
A party shall file the statement with
Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.
A.
Changes in Timing.
1.
Defendants request a ninety (90) day stay on all
27
disclosures and discovery in order to allow sufficient time to
28
work out the terms of settlement.
3
1
2.
Plaintiff does not request any changes in the
2
timing, form, or requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a).
3
If a stay on disclosures and discovery is ordered, Plaintiff
4
requests that all dates requested herein be extended an
5
additional ninety (90) days as well.
6
B.
7
Cut-Off Date for Non-Expert Discovery.
1.
8
January 2012.
9
C.
The parties propose a discovery cut-off date in
Suggested Timing of the Disclosure of Expert Witness
10
Discovery as Required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2).
11
1.
The parties request that any expert exchange be
12
simultaneous between all parties ninety (90) days prior to the
13
close of discovery, with supplemental disclosures thirty (30)
14
days later.
15
D.
16
Changes in the Limits on Discovery.
1.
The parties do not request changes to the
17
limitations on discovery, aside from those imposed by the Federal
18
Rules of Civil Procedure and local rules.
19
E.
Protective Order Relating to the Discovery of
20
Information.
21
1.
22
23
The parties do not anticipate at this time that
such protective order will be required.
F.
24
Timing, Sequencing, Phasing or Scheduling of Discovery.
1.
The parties do not seek a timetable for discovery
25
outside of the Court’s Scheduling Order.
26
believe discovery should be conducted in phases or limited to
27
particular issues.
28
G.
Discovery Outside of the U.S.
4
The parties do not
1
2
3
1.
discovery outside the United States.
H.
4
5
6
9
Video and/or Sound Recording of Depositions.
1.
The parties anticipate that all depositions will
be videotaped.
I.
7
8
The parties do not anticipate the need to take
Mid-Discovery Status Report and Conference.
1.
The parties propose a date in November 2011 for
status report and conference.
J.
Discovery Relating to Electronic, Digital and/or
10
Magnetic Data.
11
1.
12
13
14
The parties do not anticipate at this time that
such discovery will be required.
K.
The case is stayed as follows:
1.
The parties have agreed to a ninety (90) day stay
15
in which they will attempt to resolve the case.
Accordingly, a
16
further Scheduling Conference shall be held September 9, 2011 at
17
8:15 a.m. in Courtroom 3.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
Dated:
June 13, 2011
emm0d6
/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
