Free Case Management Statement - District Court of California - California

Case 4:07-cv-03885-CW

Document 17

Filed 11/05/2007

Page 1 of 9

1 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California 2 CHRISTOPHER E. KRUEGER Senior Assistant Attorney General 3 STEPHEN P. ACQUISTO Supervising Deputy Attorney General 4 JILL BOWERS, State Bar No. 186196 Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 5 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 6 Telephone: (916) 323-1948 Fax: (916) 324-5567 7 Email: [email protected] 8 Attorneys for Defendant Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger 9 10 11 12 13 JOHN PHILLIPS, 14 Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 17 18 19 20 Defendant, the Hon. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of the State of California, CITY OF OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. Hearing: Off Calendar U.S.D.J.: The Hon. Claudia Wilken DEFENDANT SCHWARZENEGGER'S SEPARATE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT [CIV. L. R. 16-9(a)]; [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. C 07-03885 CW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

21 through counsel, submits this Separate Case Management Statement pursuant to Civil Local 22 Rule 16-1(a), which states that, "[i]f one or more of the parties is not represented by counsel, the 23 parties may file separate case management statements." Civ. L. R. 16-1(a). Defendant asks the 24 Court to adopt his [Proposed] Order (attached, Exhibit A) as its Case Management Order in this 25 case. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / /
Defendant Schwarzenegger Separate Case Management Conference Statement Phillips v. City of Oakland, et al. C07-03885-CW

1

Case 4:07-cv-03885-CW

Document 17

Filed 11/05/2007

Page 2 of 9

1 2

1.

Jurisdiction and Service Defendant denies jurisdiction based on Plaintiff John Phillips' allegation of a pending

3 state criminal case against him. Defendant understands that the City of Oakland has been 4 served. Defendant lacks sufficient information to state whether the other named defendants have 5 been served. 6 7 2. Statement of Facts And Factual Issues in Dispute John Phillips, Plaintiff in propria persona, alleges that he is "federally licensed to

8 grow and sell marijuana" and thus is immune to state criminal prosecution, case number 9 "488924A, Superior Court of California, County of Alameda." (Pet. ¶¶ 9-10.) Phillips further 10 alleges that California courts have declined to apply the California Compassionate Use Act. 11 (Pet. ¶ 11.) Only one of Phillips' five causes of action­the third, for "Violation of the 12 Supremacy Clause"­is alleged against Governor Schwarzenegger. Phillips alleges no act or 13 omission by the Governor, who is sued only in his official capacity. Thus, there are no material 14 facts in dispute with respect to the Governor's entitlement to dismissal from this lawsuit. 15 16 3. Legal Issues Defendant's pending motion to dismiss raises three complete legal defenses to

17 Phillips' claim, any one of which is a sufficient basis to grant Defendant's motion under Federal 18 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6). 19 First, the federal Anti-Injunction Act precludes federal injunctions against proceedings

20 already commenced in state court, such as the one Phillips targets. 28 U.S.C. § 2283. See 21 McLucas v. Palmer, 427 F.2d 239 (2d Cir. 1970) (holding that the rule against federal court 22 interference with state court criminal prosecution cannot be circumvented by seeking declaratory 23 judgment in addition to or in lieu of injunction); see also H. J. Heinz Co. v. Owens, 189 F.2d 505 24 (9th Cir. 1951) (affirming dismissal where 28 U.S.C. § 2283 prohibited grant of declaratory and 25 injunctive relief). 26 Second, the Younger abstention doctrine requires the Court to abstain from enjoining

27 the ongoing state court criminal proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 49-53 (1971); 28 Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 68-73 (1971) (holding that district court should have denied
Defendant Schwarzenegger Separate Case Management Conference Statement Phillips v. City of Oakland, et al. C07-03885-CW

2

Case 4:07-cv-03885-CW

Document 17

Filed 11/05/2007

Page 3 of 9

1 any relief, including declaratory relief, without consideration of merits where plaintiffs sought to 2 enjoin pending state court criminal prosecutions); United States v. Morros, 268 F.3d 695, 707 3 (9th Cir. 2001) ("Whether it is labeled `comity,' `federalism,' or some other term, the policy 4 objective behind Younger abstention is to avoid unnecessary conflict between the state and 5 federal governments.") 6 Third, Phillips' Petition must be dismissed for "lack of a cognizable legal theory," and

7 due to "the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory." Ballistreri v. 8 Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699. A court's determination that a complaint is deficient 9 on either Ballistreri ground is a sufficient legal basis for dismissal. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 10 11 4. Motions On October 26, 2007, the Court vacated the November 8, 2007, hearing on

12 Defendant's unopposed motion to dismiss and took the matter under submission. Should the 13 Court deny this motion, Defendant will move for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, 14 summary adjudication of facts, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 15 16 5. Amendment of Pleadings Defendant responded to the Petition with a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of

17 Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b)(6). Defendant has not yet filed his answer. 18 19 6. Evidence Preservation In his Complaint, Plaintiff contends that Defendant has violated the Supremacy Clause

20 of the United States Constitution, but avers neither supporting facts nor injury as a result of the 21 alleged violated. To the best of our knowledge at this time, Defendant is not in possession, of 22 any evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident from this allegation. 23 24 25 Defendant's motion to dismiss is presently pending before this Court. Defendant 7. Rule 26 Disclosures; Discovery; Settlement and Alternative Dispute Resolution; and Scheduling: Proposed Order

26 therefore asks the Court to enter the following order concerning initial disclosures, discovery 27 plan, early settlement, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process selection (if any), and 28 scheduling:
Defendant Schwarzenegger Separate Case Management Conference Statement Phillips v. City of Oakland, et al. C07-03885-CW

3

Case 4:07-cv-03885-CW

Document 17

Filed 11/05/2007

Page 4 of 9

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

(a) The last day to meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR process selection, and discovery plan, shall be 90 days after entry of the order denying the dispositive motion last filed by any party attacking the pleadings that is pending on the date the case management order is entered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f); ADR L.R. 3-5. (b) Discovery may commence on this Court's issuance of an order approving the parties' joint discovery plan, and shall be completed not later than 180 days from the date of that order or on the date specified in the plan, whichever is later. All discovery demands shall be served so that responses may be served before the close of the discovery period. Any motions regarding discovery disputes shall be noticed so that they may be heard before the close of the discovery period. These deadlines may be changed by stipulation of the parties without the necessity for a hearing. (c) Dispositive motions shall be filed and served not later than 120 days following the close of discovery. (d) The pretrial conference shall be held not sooner than 45 days following this Court's ruling on any party's dispositive motions last-filed during the period described in paragraph 7(c). (e) Trial shall be set no earlier than 60 days following the pretrial conference. Motions in limine and other pretrial motions shall be noticed so as to be heard before the date set for commencement of trial.

25 (Ex. A, Proposed Order.) 26 27 8. Related Cases Phillips alleges that he seeks relief from Superior Court of California, County of

28 Alameda, Case no. 488924A. (Pet. ¶¶ 9-10.)
Defendant Schwarzenegger Separate Case Management Conference Statement Phillips v. City of Oakland, et al. C07-03885-CW

4

Case 4:07-cv-03885-CW

Document 17

Filed 11/05/2007

Page 5 of 9

1 2

9.

Relief Phillips seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief. Defendant denies that Phillips is

3 entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief or to any relief whatsoever. 4 5 6 7 10. Consent to Magistrate Jurisdiction for All Purposes Defendant does not consent to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge for all purposes. 11. Other References This case is not suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a special master, or the

8 Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, because Defendant has complete legal defenses to 9 Phillips' claims and is entitled to dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 10 11 12. Narrowing of Issues At this time, no issues in this case can be narrowed by agreement. Defendant submits

12 that his motion to dismiss will dispose of all issues in this case as to Defendant. 13 14 13. Expedited Schedule At this time, it does not appear that this case can be handled on an expedited basis with

15 streamlined procedures. 16 17 14. Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons Defendant, sued in his official capacity, is exempt from the "Certification of Interested

18 Entities or Persons" requirement. Civ. L. R. 3-16(a). 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / /
Defendant Schwarzenegger Separate Case Management Conference Statement Phillips v. City of Oakland, et al. C07-03885-CW

5

Case 4:07-cv-03885-CW

Document 17

Filed 11/05/2007

Page 6 of 9

1 2

15.

Other Matters There are no other matters which Defendant wishes to bring to the Court's attention at

3 this time. 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
Defendant Schwarzenegger Separate Case Management Conference Statement Phillips v. City of Oakland, et al. C07-03885-CW
Seperate Case Mgmnt Conf. Stmnt.wpd SA2007102364

Dated: November 5, 2007

Respectfully submitted, EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California CHRISTOPHER E. KRUEGER Senior Assistant Attorney General STEPHEN P. ACQUISTO Supervising Deputy Attorney General /s/ JILL BOWERS Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant

6

Case 4:07-cv-03885-CW

Document 17

Filed 11/05/2007

Page 7 of 9

1 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California 2 CHRISTOPHER E. KRUEGER Senior Assistant Attorney General 3 STEPHEN P. ACQUISTO Supervising Deputy Attorney General 4 JILL BOWERS, State Bar No. 186196 Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 5 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 6 Telephone: (916) 323-1948 Fax: (916) 324-5567 7 Email: [email protected] 8 Attorneys for Defendant Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 OAKLAND DIVISION 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: (a) The last day to meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR v. CITY OF OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. Hearing: Time: Courtroom: U.S. D.J.: November 8, 2007 2:00 P.M. 2 (Fourth Floor) The Hon. Claudia Wilken JOHN PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, Case No. C 07-03885 CW [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

21 process selection, and discovery plan, shall be 90 days after entry of the order denying the 22 dispositive motion last filed by any party attacking the pleadings that is pending on the date the 23 case management order is entered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f); ADR L.R. 3-5. 24 (b) Discovery may commence on this Court's issuance of an order approving the

25 parties' joint discovery plan, and shall be completed not later than 180 days from the date of that 26 order or on the date specified in the plan, whichever is later. All discovery demands shall be 27 served so that responses may be served before the close of the discovery period. Any motions 28 regarding discovery disputes shall be noticed so that they may be heard before the close of the
Case Management Order Phillips v. City of Oakland, et al. C07-03885-CW

1

Case 4:07-cv-03885-CW

Document 17

Filed 11/05/2007

Page 8 of 9

1 discovery period. These deadlines may be changed by stipulation of the parties without the 2 necessity for a hearing. 3 (c) Dispositive motions shall be filed and served not later than 120 days following

4 the close of discovery. 5 (d) The pretrial conference shall be held not sooner than 45 days following this

6 Court's ruling on any party's dispositive motions filed during the period described in paragraph 7 7(c). 8 (e) Trial shall be set no earlier than 60 days following the pretrial conference.

9 Motions in limine and other pretrial motions shall be noticed so as to be heard before the date set 10 for commencement of trial. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case Management Order Phillips v. City of Oakland, et al. C07-03885-CW
Proposed Case Mngmnt Order.wpd

DATED: THE HON. CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SA2007102364

2

Case 4:07-cv-03885-CW

Document 17

Filed 11/05/2007

Page 9 of 9

DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL Case Name: No.: Phillips v. City of Oakland, et al.

C07-03885-CW

I declare: I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondence placed in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. On November 5, 2007, I served the attached DEFENDANT SCHWARZENEGGER'S SEPARATE CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT [CIV. L. R. 16-9(a)]; [PROPOSED] ORDER by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General at 1300 I Street, Suite 125, P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 942442550, addressed as follows: John Richard Phillips 2337 Ransom Avenue Oakland, CA 94601-3827

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on November 5, 2007, at Sacramento, California.

Rachel Aldred Declarant
10393979.wpd

/s/ Signature