Free Case Management Statement - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-01020-JL

Document 22

Filed 07/30/2008

Page 1 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ERIC M. SAFIRE, SB#98706 LAW OFFICES OF ERIC M. SAFIRE 2431 Fillmore Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Tel: (415) 292-1940 Fax: (415) 292-1946 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff JENNIFER ACUNA

Kimberly E. Colwell (SBN: 127604) Tricia L. Hynes (SBN: 212550) Email: [email protected] MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON 555 12th Street, Suite 1500 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 808-2000 Facsimile: (510) 444-1108
Attorneys for Defendants CHIEF DALE ATTARIAN and CITY OF SAN LEANDRO

Alison Berry Wilkinson, SBN 135890 BERRY | WILKINSON | LAW GROUP 4040 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200 San Rafael, CA 94903 Telephone/Facsimile: 415.259.6638 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant GREGORY ALLEN CANNEDY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER ACUNA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SAN LEANDRO; OFFICER GREGORY ALLEN CANNEDY, individually and in his official capacity; CHIEF DALE ATTARIAN, in his official capacity; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants.

Case No. CV 08 1020 JL Related Case: CV 07-6142 JL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER Date: August 6, 2008 Time: 10:30 a.m. Location: Courtroom F, 15th Floor, SF

Acuna v. City of San Leandro, et al. Case No. C07-6142 JL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Case 3:08-cv-01020-JL

Document 22

Filed 07/30/2008

Page 2 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
// 1. JURISDICTION AND SERVICE The complaint alleges violations of the constitutional rights of Plaintiff JENNIFER ACUNA, and seeks remedies pursuant to Title 42, United States Code §1983. Jurisdiction is conferred upon the United States District Court by Title 28, United States Code, §§1331 and 1343. The actions giving rise to Defendants' liability, as alleged in the Complaint, occurred in the City of San Leandro, State of California. Service has been completed on all parties. 2. FACTS A. Plaintiff JENNIFER ACUNA

Plaintiff JENNIFER ACUNA contends that Defendant CANNEDY violated her civil rights when, while on duty and acting in the course and scope of his employment he kissed and groped her against her will. Plaintiff contends that Defendant CHIEF failed to adequately train, supervise, investigate, monitor, and discipline, and knew, or should have known, of the propensity of Defendant CANNEDY to violate civil rights. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant CITY had a custom or practice, or other policy, that resulted in inadequate hiring, training, supervision, and discipline of officers regarding violations of civil rights. B. Defendant CITY and CHIEF

When alerted in September 2006 to the claims involving Defendant CANNEDY, Defendants CITY and DALE ATTARIAN conducted a thorough investigation and took all appropriate actions. C. Defendant GREGORY ALLEN CANNEDY

Defendant GREGORY CANNEDY denies the conduct alleged in the Complaint and affirmatively asserts that his actions were proper, lawful, and within the course and scope of his employment. 3. LEGAL ISSUES A. Plaintiff

The legal issues in this case are the damages suffered by Plaintiff and the liability of the Defendants under Title 42 United States Code §1983 et seq.

-2Acuna v. City of San Leandro, et al. Case No. C07-6142 JL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Case 3:08-cv-01020-JL

Document 22

Filed 07/30/2008

Page 3 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
6. 4.

B.

Defendants CITY, CHIEF and CANNEDY

Whether Plaintiff's claims are time barred; Whether Defendant CANNEDY's actions were outside of the course and scope of employment; Whether Plaintiff will be able to allege a pattern, practice or custom of widespread deliberate or willful indifference to hiring and supervision of its officers; and Whether Plaintiff suffered any damages. MOTIONS At this time, Plaintiff anticipates only filing Motions in Limine. Defendants CITY, CHIEF, and CANNEDY anticipate moving for summary judgment based upon various available defenses, including the statute of limitations and/or qualified immunity. Defendants are also contemplating whether to file a motion to stay this proceeding, as well as the related case Burke v. City of San Leandro, et al. Docket No. CV 07-6142 JL . Defendants are further contemplating a motion to consolidate this action with the related case Burke v. City of San Leandro, et al. Docket No. CV 07-6142 JL and seek the Court's guidance with how best to accomplish this 5. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS Plaintiff does not intend to amend her pleadings. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION Much of the evidence will be preserved by the criminal prosecution of CANNDY, which Plaintiff believes is being handled by the Alameda County District Attorney's office and/or the California Attorney General's office. 7. DISCLOSURES Plaintiff and Defendants CITY and ATTARIAN exchanged initial disclosures on May 21, 2008, prior to Defendant CANNEDY appearing in the action. Defendant CANNEDY will exchange his initial disclosures at or before the Case Management Conference currently set for August 6, 2008. // //

-3Acuna v. City of San Leandro, et al. Case No. C07-6142 JL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Case 3:08-cv-01020-JL

Document 22

Filed 07/30/2008

Page 4 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

8.

DISCOVERY No discovery has yet been initiated. The parties anticipate that the scope of anticipated

discovery will include depositions of the involved parties, written interrogatories and requests for admissions, and document production requests. The parties agree to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure outlining the number and timing of written and oral discovery. Defendants request that Admissions and Document Demands be limited to 50 per party including discrete subparts. Defendants CHIEF ATTARIAN and the CITY propose a pre-trial conference of June 8, 2009; a dispositive motion hearing date of May 11, 2009; an expert discovery cut off date of April 20, 2009; a fact discovery cut off date of March 30, 2009. Defendants CHIEF ATTARIAN and the CITY contend these dates should be subject to change based upon if and when Defendant CANNEDY'S criminal trial ends. Plaintiff will seek to alter the discovery cut-off dates if any motion by Defendants granting a stay in this action, in part or in full, during the pending criminal proceedings against Defendant CANNEDY. 9. CLASS ACTIONS This is not a class action. 10. RELATED CASE This matter is related to Burke v. City of San Leandro, et al. Docket No. CV 07-6142 JL The parties are not aware of any other related cases. Defendants contend that this case should be consolidated with the related case Burke v. City of San Leandro, et al. Docket No. CV 07-6142 JL. 11. RELIEF Plaintiff prays for monetary relief. 12. SETTLEMENT and ADR The parties stipulated to engage in Early Neutral Evaluation and, on May 14, 2008, the Court assigned Gail Killefer as the Evaluator for this action. To date, the parties have been continuing their initial joint phone conference with Ms. Killefer until all parties were represented and had appeared in the action. All parties agree that the scheduling of the Early Neutral Evaluation should be delayed until the parties have conducted initial discovery in this matter. As

-4Acuna v. City of San Leandro, et al. Case No. C07-6142 JL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Case 3:08-cv-01020-JL

Document 22

Filed 07/30/2008

Page 5 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

a result, the parties request that the court set a new deadline for ADR completion 120 days from the date of the Case Management Conference. 13. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES The parties have all consented to a magistrate judge for all proceedings in this case. 14. OTHER REFERENCES Not applicable. 15. NARROWING OF ISSUES Not applicable. 16. EXPEDITED SCHEDULE Not applicable. 17. SCHEDULING Defendants CHIEF ATTARIAN and the CITY propose a pre-trial conference of June 8, 2009; a dispositive motion hearing date of May 11, 2009; an expert discovery cut off date of April 20, 2009; a fact discovery cut off date of March 30, 2009. Defendants CHIEF ATTARIAN and the CITY contend these dates should be subject to change based upon if and when Defendant CANNEDY'S criminal trial ends. Plaintiff concurs, see section 8. 18. TRIAL Defendant CANNEDY s currently being prosecuted criminally, and the venue has yet to be settled as the People have appealed CANNEDY's successful Motion to Recuse the Alameda County District Attorney's Office. See, People v. Gregory Allen Cannedy, First Appellate District Case No. A120293. Because of the pending criminal action, it is premature at this time to schedule a trial date. Defendants CHIEF ATTARIAN and the CITY concur with this assessment. Should the Court wish to assign a trial date now, however, Defendants CHIEF ATTARIAN and the CITY request June 22, 2009. 19. DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS The parties have filed their respective disclosures of interested entities or persons. // // //

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-5Acuna v. City of San Leandro, et al. Case No. C07-6142 JL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Case 3:08-cv-01020-JL

Document 22

Filed 07/30/2008

Page 6 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

20.

MISCELLANEOUS Not applicable.

Dated: July 30, 2008

LAW OFFICE OF ERIC M. SAFIRE

______________/s/___________________ By: ERIC M. SAFIRE Attorney for Plaintiff Jennifer Acuna Dated: July 30, 2008
MEYERS NAVE SIBACK SILVER & WILSON

______________/s/ __________________ By: Tricia L. Hynes Attorneys for Defendants City of San Leandro and Chief Dale Attarian Dated: July 30, 2008
BERRY | WILKINSON | LAW GROUP

______________/s/___________________ By: Alison Berry Wilkinson Attorneys for Defendant Gregory Allen Cannedy CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER The Case Management Statement and Proposed Order is hereby adopted by the Court as the Case Management Order for the case and the parties are ordered to comply with this Order. Dated:_________________________ __________________________________ Hon. Magistrate Judge James Larson UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-6Acuna v. City of San Leandro, et al. Case No. C07-6142 JL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT