Schooley et al v. Patel et al

Filing 11

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 6/16/2011.( Discovery Cut-Off: 4/30/2012, Non-Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 4/30/2012, Non-Dispositive Motion Hearing set 6/1/2012 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 7 (SMS) before Magist rate Judge Sandra M. Snyder, Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 4/30/2012, Dispositive Motion Hearing set for 6/4/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (OWW) before Judge Oliver W. Wanger, Settlement Conference set for 5/2/2012 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 7 (SMS) before Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder, Pretrial Conference set for 7/9/2012 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (OWW) before Judge Oliver W. Wanger, Jury Trial set for 8/21/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (OWW) before Judge Oliver W. Wanger.) (Gaumnitz, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 PAMELA SCHOOLEY AND ROBERT SCHOOLEY, EACH AN INDIVIDUAL, 10 Plaintiffs, 11 v. 12 13 COUNTRY INN SONORA; VINOD N. PATEL; AND NAYANA V. PATEL, 14 Defendants. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:10-cv-2367 OWW SMS SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER Discovery Cut-Off: 4/30/12 Non-Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 4/30/12 Non-Dispositive Motion Hearing Date: 6/1/12 9:00 Ctrm. 7 16 Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 4/30/12 17 Dispositive Motion Hearing Date: 6/4/12 10:00 Ctrm. 3 18 19 Settlement Conference Date: 5/2/12 10:30 Ctrm. 7 20 Pre-Trial Conference Date: 7/9/12 11:00 Ctrm. 3 21 Trial Date: 8/21/12 9:00 Ctrm. 3 (JT-5 days) 22 23 24 I. 25 26 27 28 Date of Scheduling Conference. June 16, 2011. II. Appearances Of Counsel. Thomas E. Frankovich, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. 1 1 Corfee Stone and Associates by Zachary M. Best, Esq., 2 appeared on behalf of Defendants. 3 III. 4 Summary of Pleadings. 1. Plaintiffs: Plaintiff Pamela Schooley and Plaintiff 5 Robert Schooley were vacationing in the Gold Country. 6 Country Inn Sonora is located at 18730 Highway 108, Jamestown, 7 California. 8 husband Plaintiff Robert Schooley attempted to rent an accessible 9 guest room at the Country Inn Sonora. Plaintiff Pamela Schooley is blind. The She and her Plaintiff Pamela Schooley 10 was accompanied by her certified guide dog, Hannah. 11 refused to rent Plaintiffs a room because of their “No Dogs” 12 allowed policy. 13 Plaintiffs attempted to explain that the law provides for guide 14 dogs. 15 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), he was “associated” with 16 Plaintiff Pamela Schooley during the discrimination and was 17 personally affected. 18 architectural barriers at the Country Inn Sonora. 19 Defendants Defendants refused to listen to Plaintiffs when Plaintiff Robert Schooley is a Plaintiff because under the 2. Defendants: Plaintiffs further encountered Plaintiff parked and was able to get into 20 the hotel lobby. 21 rooms that Defendant had for service animals. 22 practice and policy of allowing pets/service animals. 23 refused to accept the room. 24 to other patrons who could not stay in it because of allergies. 25 IV. 26 Plaintiff asked for a regular room, not the pet Defendant had a Plaintiff Defendant designated a pet room due Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings. 1. The parties do not anticipate amending the pleadings at 27 this time, however, they reserve the right to amend the 28 pleadings. 2 1 V. Factual Summary. 2 A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further 3 Proceedings. 4 1. The subject real property is the Country Inn 5 Sonora located at 18730 Highway 108, Jamestown, California, 6 County of Tuolumne. 7 2. 8 owners of the facility. 9 3. 10 The subject real property is a place of public accommodation and Defendants had a hotel room for pets. 11 12 Defendants Ninod N. Patel and Nayana V. Patel are 4. The Plaintiff Pamela Schooley is sight impaired. Plaintiff Robert Schooley is able bodied. 13 B. Contested Facts. 14 Plaintiffs 15 1. 16 a guide dog. 17 2. That Defendants’ dog policy was discriminatory. 18 3. That Plaintiffs encountered the following 19 architectural barriers: 20 21 a. Lack of directional signage to show accessible routes of travel, i.e., entrances; 22 23 That Defendants refused to rent a room because of b. Lack of the requisite type and number of disabled parking stall(s); 24 c. Lack of disabled van accessible parking 26 d. Lack of tow-a-way signage; 27 e. Lack of handicapped accessible guest room 25 28 stall(s); with two beds and bathroom within; 3 1 2 f. guest rooms by classification; and 3 4 g. Defendants 6 1. 10 Defendant has a policy of allowing pets, including service animals to stay at the hotel. 8 9 Lack of a policy and procedure for service animals. 5 7 Lack of the requisite number of accessible 2. Plaintiff refused to accept the room because many patrons without pets/service animals would not want to stay in a room where a service animal/pet had been because of allergies. 11 3. Plaintiff never complained of any other alleged 12 discriminatory barrier. 13 4. Defendant had a service animal and pet policy. 14 Just because it was called “pet” by the employee does not mean 15 Defendant refused service animals in the designated room. 16 VI. 17 Legal Issues. A. 18 Uncontested. 1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 19 Jurisdiction is also invoked under the Americans with 20 Disabilities Act, and 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 21 action is more properly filed in State Court, however, Federal 22 jurisdiction is conceded. Defendants maintain the 23 2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 24 3. The substantive law of the State of California 25 provides the rule of decision on supplemental claims. 26 B. 27 Plaintiffs 28 Contested. 1. Defendants had a discriminatory policy against the 4 1 blind and their guide dog(s). 2 2. Thereby violating both state and federal statutes. 3 3. That pursuant to the “Readily Achievable” Standard 4 of the Americans with Disabilities Act and CFR, that the 5 architectural barriers complained of should have been removed. 6 Defendants 7 1. Defendants maintain that this action should more 8 properly be filed in State Court under the doctrine of comity per 9 the California codes, including damages, injunctive relief, etc. 10 2. Plaintiffs have the burden of proving that she 11 intended to use and enjoy the public accommodation as opposed to 12 setting them up for a lawsuit to extort an early settlement. 13 3. Plaintiffs’ alleged barriers are too expensive and 14 constitute an undue burden to Defendants due to lack of income 15 and money. 16 17 4. Plaintiff failed to avoid the consequence of her harm and/or mitigate her damages. 18 5. Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing “actual” 19 injury pursuant to California law. 20 VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. 21 1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 22 case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial. 23 VIII. 24 1. Corporate Identification Statement. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in 25 this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent 26 corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the 27 party's equity securities. 28 its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the A party shall file the statement with 5 1 statement within a reasonable time of any change in the 2 information. 3 IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date. 4 Plaintiffs 5 1. Request fifty (50) interrogatories as the case involves 6 a multitude of architectural elements that did not comply with 7 ADAAG (i.e., lever hardware, percentage of slope, counter height, 8 door width, door pressure, path of travel and classification of 9 rooms, etc.). 10 2. Deposition(s): 11 3. Production: 12 Defendants 13 1. pursuant to Code. pursuant to Code. Defendants request that Plaintiffs’ interrogatories be 14 pursuant to Code as an expert does a site survey, identify ADA 15 matters that Plaintiff allegedly disputes. 16 discovery and a site inspection of Plaintiffs’ place of living to 17 see if it meets ADA code and/or Fair Housing Code to verify 18 Plaintiff’s similar allegations against Defendants. Depositions, written 19 The Court adopts the following schedule for the case: 20 1. 21 22 The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on or before April 30, 2012. 2. The parties are directed to disclose all expert 23 witnesses, in writing, on or before February 29, 2012. Any 24 rebuttal or supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or 25 before March 29, 2012. 26 provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) regarding 27 their expert designations. 28 the written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F. The parties will comply with the Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding, 6 1 R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all 2 information required thereunder. 3 compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the 4 testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are 5 not disclosed pursuant to this order. 6 3. Failure to designate experts in The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 7 apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 8 Experts shall be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects 9 and opinions included in the designation and their reports, which 10 shall include every opinion to be rendered and all reasons for 11 each opinion. 12 sanctions. 13 X. 14 Failure to comply will result in the imposition of Pre-Trial Motion Schedule. 1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any 15 discovery motions, shall be filed on or before April 30, 2012, 16 and heard on June 1, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge 17 Sandra M. Snyder in Courtroom 7. 18 2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate 19 Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time 20 pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). 21 obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply 22 with Local Rule 251 and this schedule. 23 3. However, if counsel does not All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be 24 filed no later than April 30, 2012, and will be heard on June 4, 25 2012, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, in 26 Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. 27 shall comply with Local Rule 230. 28 /// In scheduling such motions, counsel 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date. 1. July 9, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger. 2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Pre- Trial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 7 and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District 8 of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for 9 the pre-trial conference. The Court insists upon strict 10 compliance with those rules. 11 XII. Motions - Hard Copy. 12 1. The parties shall submit one (1) courtesy paper copy to 13 the Court of any motions filed. 14 protruding numbered or lettered tabs so that the Court can easily 15 identify such exhibits. 16 XIII. 17 1. Exhibits shall be marked with Trial Date. August 21, 2012, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 18 3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United 19 States District Judge. 20 2. This is a jury trial. 21 3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time: 22 23 a. 4. Three to five days. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules 24 of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 25 XIV. Settlement Conference. 26 1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for May 2, 2012, 27 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 7 before the Honorable Sandra M. 28 Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge. 8 The parties will notify 1 Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder’s Courtroom Deputy when they 2 are ready for an earlier Settlement Conference. 3 2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the 4 Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the 5 Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons 6 having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any 7 terms at the conference. 8 3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend 9 by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy 10 to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works 11 outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in 12 person would constitute a hardship. 13 allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the 14 conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 15 Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement 16 authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in 17 advance by letter copied to all other parties. 18 4. If telephone attendance is Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 19 At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the 20 parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's 21 chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. 22 statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor 23 served on any other party. 24 marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement 25 Conference indicated prominently thereon. 26 request the return of their statements if settlement is not 27 achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose 28 of the statement. The Each statement shall be clearly 9 Counsel are urged to 1 2 5. Statement shall include the following: 3 4 The Confidential Settlement Conference a. A brief statement of the facts of the b. A brief statement of the claims and case. 5 6 defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims 7 are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood 8 of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of 9 the major issues in dispute. 10 c. A summary of the proceedings to date. 11 d. An estimate of the cost and time to be 12 expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial. 13 e. The relief sought. 14 f. The parties' position on settlement, 15 including present demands and offers and a history of past 16 settlement discussions, offers and demands. 17 XV. 18 Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 19 20 21 22 23 Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 1. Bifurcation will be addressed by motion. XVI. Related Matters Pending. 1. XVII. 1. There are no related matters. Compliance With Federal Procedure. The Court requires compliance with the Federal 24 Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the 25 Eastern District of California. 26 efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed 27 to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil 28 Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District To aid the court in the 10 1 of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto. 2 XVIII. 3 1. Effect Of This Order. The foregoing order represents the best 4 estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable 5 to bring this case to resolution. 6 specifically reserved for this case. 7 any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met, 8 counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact 9 so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by 10 11 The trial date reserved is If the parties determine at subsequent scheduling conference. 2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained 12 herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by 13 affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached 14 exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief 15 requested. 16 17 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: June 16, 2011 emm0d6 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?