Lopez v. Pima County et al

Filing 156

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 148 , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: Magistrate Judge Velascos Report and Recommendation (Doc. 148) is accepted and adopted. The referral of the case to Magistrate Judge Velasco is withdrawn. Defendants motion for summary judgment Doc. 126 is denied in part and granted in part. The parties shall file a proposed Joint Pretrial Order on or before 9/16/11. Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 8/31/11.(SEE ATTACHED PDF FOR COMPLETE INFORMATION)(KAD)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

3
4

Margarita Lopez,

5
6

Plaintiff,
vs.

7
Pima County, et al.,
8
Defendants.
9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 09-109-TUC-FRZ
ORDER

10
11
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) issued by
12
Magistrate Judge Velasco which recommends denying in part and granting in part
13
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Velasco recommends denying
14
the motion in part as material issues of fact exist on the issue of whether Plaintiff was
15
disabled as defined by the ADA. However, Magistrate Judge Velasco recommends granting
16
the motion in part as no material issues of fact exist on the issue of whether Plaintiff has
17
established a prima facie case of ADA retaliation. As the Court finds that the R & R
18

appropriately resolved the motion for summary judgment, the parties objections are denied.1

19
20
1

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the R & R, and reviews for clear
error the unobjected-to portions of the R & R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b);
Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Conley v. Crabtree,
14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). As to the ADA retaliation claim, the Court notes that
Defendant correctly argues (Doc. 152) that Plaintiff’s objection to the R & R exclusively raises
arguments and cites portions of the record that were never properly presented to Magistrate Judge
Velasco in specifically opposing summary judgment as to the retaliation claim; these issues could
have been timely raised before Judge Velasco, but Plaintiff failed to do so. As such, the Court
exercises its discretion and declines to consider these new matters presented for the first time in the
objection to the R & R. See U.S. v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-23 (9th Cir. 2000). Alternatively, as
Defendants correctly argue (Doc. 152), even if Plaintiff had properly presented her new arguments
to avoid dismissal of the retaliation claim to Magistrate Judge Velasco, Plaintiff failed to properly
plead these matters in her Complaint, and therefore Defendants did not have proper notice that such
allegations purportedly served as a basis for Plaintiff’s retaliation claim. See Pickern v. Pier 1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

2

(1) Magistrate Judge Velasco’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 148) is accepted and

3

adopted. The referral of the case to Magistrate Judge Velasco is withdrawn.

4

(2) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 126) is denied in part and granted in

5

part.

6

(3) The parties shall file a proposed Joint Pretrial Order on or before 9/16/11, which shall

7

include, but not be limited to, that prescribed in the form of Joint Pretrial Order attached.

8

Motions in limine shall be filed no later than the date of filing the proposed Joint Pretrial

9

Order. Responses to motions in limine are due 14 days after the filing of the motion. Unless

10

otherwise ordered by the Court, no replies are permitted and motions in limine and

11

responses thereto shall not exceed five pages. Typically, after the Court has issued an

12

Order addressing motions in limine, the Court will hold a status conference with the parties

13

to discuss dates for the trial, pretrial conference, and the filing of proposed jury instructions,

14

voir dire and verdict forms.

15

(4) Any motion, pleading, or other document which is submitted with more than one exhibit

16

must be accompanied by a Table of Contents; any exhibits must be indexed with tabs which

17

correspond to the Table of Contents. Courtesy paper copies of all filings must be mailed to

18

chambers (LRCiv 5.4); any motion, pleading, or other document which is submitted with

19

more than one exhibit must be accompanied by a Table of Contents and the exhibits must be

20

indexed with tabs which correspond to the Table of Contents. Anytime a party files a

21

motion, response, reply, or other brief with the Court, the party must mail the Court courtesy

22

paper copies of all authority cited in the brief which shall be included in a binder with a table

23
24
25
26
27
28

Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). As such, Plaintiff’s new allegations relating
to her retaliation claim are not properly before the Court and the Court declines to consider them;
alternatively, to the extent Plaintiff’s actions could be considered a motion for leave to amend the
Complaint to add these new allegations as a basis for her retaliation claim, the untimely motion is
denied in light of the fact that the deadline to amend passed many months ago, there is no good
cause for a late amendment, discovery has closed, and the dispositive motion deadline has expired.
See id.; Coleman v. Quacker Oats Company, 232 F.3d 1271, 1292- 95 (9th Cir. 2000).

-2-

1

of contents and exhibit tags corresponding to the authority cited. Such authority includes,

2

but is not limited to, case law, rules, statutes, regulations, and treatises. To the extent case

3

law, rules, statutes, or regulations are cited, the entire case, rule, statute or regulation shall

4

be included in the binder. The case law shall be organized in alphabetical order. To the

5

extent treatises are cited, only the section(s) relied upon shall be included in the binder. As

6

to all of the authority cited which must be included in the binder, the parties shall also tag

7

(with a post-it) the specific page(s) cited in their briefs and highlight (by circling with a pen

8

or using a highlighter) the portion of the case, rule, statute, regulation, or treatise that

9

supports the citations of authority relied upon in their briefs. The parties shall provide the

10

Court with courtesy copies within five business days after a document is filed. If a party fails

11

to submit the required authority binder, the Court may summarily deny or grant a motion as

12

applicable to the party that failed to comply with the authority binder requirement.

13

(5) If the parties believe that a settlement conference could be fruitful, the Court can set a

14

settlement conference with a Magistrate Judge, the Court can set another settlement

15

conference with the Ninth Circuit Mediators (they will be in Tucson from Oct. 17-21 and

16

Nov. 14-18), or the parties can attend a private mediation; upon filing a notice that the parties

17

wish to explore settlement, the Court will stay all of the deadlines herein pending the

18

outcome of any settlement conference.

19
20

DATED this 31st day of August, 2011.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

*,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
*,
Defendant(s).

)
)
)
CV **-***-TUC-FRZ
)
) PROPOSED JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER
)
)
)
)
)

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order previously entered, following is the proposed Joint
Pretrial Order which shall, upon approval of the Court, become the Final Pretrial Order.
I.
IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

II.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Briefly state the facts and cite the statutes which give this Court jurisdiction.

III.
NATURE OF ACTION
Provide a concise statement of the type of case, the cause of action, and the relief
sought.

IV.
STIPULATIONS AND UNCONTESTED FACTS

V.
CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT
The following are issues of fact to be tried and determined upon trial. Each issue of
fact must be stated separately and in specific terms, followed by the parties' contentions as
to each issue.
Issue:
Plaintiff(s) contends:
Defendant(s) contends:

VI.
RELEVANT UNCONTESTED ISSUES OF LAW
(i.e. burdens of proof; standards of review)

VII.
RELEVANT CONTESTED ISSUES OF LAW
The following are issues of law to be tried and determined upon trial. Each issue of
law must be stated separately and in specific terms, followed by the parties' contentions as
to each issue.
Issue:
Plaintiff(s) contends:
Defendant(s) contends:
VIII.
LIST OF WITNESSES
Each party shall provide a list of witnesses intended to be called at trial. Each
witness shall be indicated as either fact or expert. A brief statement as to the testimony of
each expert witness shall also be included.

IX.
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Each party shall provide a list of numbered exhibits.

A statement of either

UNCONTESTED or CONTESTED shall follow each listed exhibit. If contested, a brief
statement of the objection by the opposing party shall follow the listed exhibit.
(eg - 1. Laboratory Report from the Clinical Immunology Diagnostic Laboratory dated June
15, 2004. CONTESTED - Relevance, foundation and hearsay.)

X.
LIST OF DEPOSITIONS
Portions of depositions that will be read at trial must be listed by page and line
number. A statement of either UNCONTESTED or CONTESTED shall follow. If
contested, a brief statement of the objection by the opposing party shall follow the listed
portion of the deposition to be offered.

XI. MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Plaintiff(s) have filed the following Motions in Limine:
Defendant(s) have filed the following Motions in Limine:

XII. JURY TRIAL or BENCH TRIAL
For a Jury Trial
Trial briefs (only upon request of the Court), proposed voir dire, interrogatories to the
jury, stipulated jury instructions and instructions which are not agreed upon, shall be filed
10 days prior to Trial.

For a Bench Trial
Trial briefs (only upon request of the Court), shall be filed 10 days prior to Trial.
Parties are referred to LRCiv 52.1 regarding the filing of proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law.

XIII. PROBABLE LENGTH OF TRIAL

CERTIFICATION
The undersigned counsel for each of the parties in this action do hereby approve and
certify the form and content of this proposed Joint Pretrial Order.

Attorney for Plaintiff(s)

Attorney for Defendant(s)

This proposed Joint Pretrial Order is hereby approved as the Final Pretrial Order on
this

day of

, 2***.

FRANK R. ZAPATA
United States District Judge