Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ramirez v. Yucatasia

United States District Court, N.D. California

August 1, 2016

IRMA RAMIREZ, Plaintiff,
v.
YUCATASIA; WAI HO and CHUN MUI HO, Trustees of the WAI HO and CHUN MUI HO 2001 Revocable Trust; LORRAINE T.C. DUN, as Trustee of the LORRAINE T.C. DUN SURVIVOR’S TRUST; LORRAINE T.C. DUN, as Trustee of the EDMUND Y.K. DUN BYPASS TRUST; and DUONG PHUONG, an individual dba YUCATASIA, Defendants.

          Thomas E. Frankovich, THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH, APLC, Attorney for Plaintiff IRMA RAMIREZ

          David Foran, Joseph A. Sacramento, LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH A. SACRAMENTO, Attorney for Lorraine T.C. Dun, Trustee of the Lorraine T.C. Dun Survivor’s Trust; and Trustee of the Edmund Y.K. Dun Bypass Trust

          Joseph A. Lepera, SBN 207615 LEPERA ASSOCIATES, PC, Attorney for Defendants PHUONG DUONG dba YUCATASIA (erroneously sued as DUONG PHUONG)

          JOINT FURTHER MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

          HON. EDWARD M. CHEN, JUDGE

         Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-9 and the Court's Order, the parties to the above -captioned action jointly submit this Further Case Management Statement.

         NOTE: As of today’s date, the parties to the above-captioned matter have reached a settlement and have a fully executed agreement.

         Plaintiff is currently waiting on the settlement funds from the tenant before filing a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. Settlement funds are currently due Friday, July 29, 2016.

         Once plaintiff has received the full settlement amount as per the parties’ settlement agreement, plaintiff will file a stipulation of dismissal with the Court. As such, the parties respectfully request that all matters currently on calendar be vacated.

         1. JURISDICTION, VENUE AND SERVICE

         Jurisdiction: This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq. Pursuant to supplemental jurisdiction, attendant and related causes of action, arising from the same nucleus of operative facts and arising out of the same transactions, are also brought under parallel California law, whose goals are closely tied with the ADA, including, but not limited to violation of California Civil Code §51, et seq. and §54, et seq., California Health & Safety Code §19955 et seq., including §19959; and California Building Code.

         Venue: Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) and is founded on the facts that the real property which is the subject of this action is located at/near 2164 Mission Street, in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, and that plaintiff’s causes of action arose in this county.

         The parties are unaware of any issues concerning personal jurisdiction or venue.

         Status of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.