1. Plaintiff filed his Class Action Complaint on June 17, 2011 (Dkt. No. 1) and 4 later amended his complaint on September 15, 2011 (Dkt. No. 29). The Amended 5 Complaint, which is the operative complaint, alleges claims for breach of contract, 6 violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code § 1770, et seq.), false 7 advertising (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.) and unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. 8 Code § 17200, et seq.). In support of his claims, Plaintiff alleges that Safeway 9 misrepresented to customers that the prices they will be charged for groceries ordered 10 online for home delivery would be the same as the price charged on that day in the 11 customers' local brick-and-mortar store.

2. Safeway moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which the Court 13 denying by order entered November 1, 2011 (Dkt. No. 38). Safeway answered the Amended Complaint, denying it misrepresented its online store pricing and alleging various affirmative defenses, on November 15, 2011 (Dkt. No. 39).

3. On December 1, 2011, the parties participated in an Early Neutral Evaluation 17 before Stephen E. Taylor, Esq. As reflected by Mr. Taylor's Certification of ADR Session (Dkt. No. 40), the parties agreed to continue their ADR efforts through a full day 19 mediation.

4. By orders entered January 3, 2011 and March 15, 2012, the Court continued 21 the initial case management conference to March 23, 2012 and then to April 20, 2012 to 22 allow the parties time to complete their efforts to settle this matter (Dkt. Nos. 43 and 45).

5. The parties were originally scheduled for a full days mediation before Judge 24 William Cahill (Ret.) at JAMS in San Francisco on April 10, 2012. The parties further 25 agreed to informally exchange discovery information necessary to facilitate a productive 26 mediation session. 27

6. Due to the medical condition of Safeway's representative and recovery time 28 following her surgery, Safeway was unable to prepare for and participate in a mediation on April 10th. The parties, therefore, continued the mediation to May 15, 2012, which was 2 the next available date on Judge Cahill's and all parties' calendar. 3

7. The parties have since exchanged their informal mediation discovery and the 4 matter has been confirmed for a full-day mediation before Judge Cahill on May 15th. The 5 parties do not anticipate any further delays. 6

8. Given the unforeseen medical complications and the ongoing settlement 7 discussions, the parties jointly request the Court continue the April 20, 2012 Case 8 Management Conference to May 25, 2012, with a joint case management conference 9 statement due on May 18, 2012, or a date thereafter convenient to the Court.

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

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.