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)
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?