Thomsen, et al., v. Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, et al.,

Filing 75

ORDER re: Undisputed and Disputed Facts signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/20/2013. Parties are DIRECTED to file their corrections and clarifications by 5/27/2013. Motion in Limine are due no later than 5/24/2013 by the close of business; opposition are due by 5/29/2013 by the close of business. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MARK THOMSEN,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

No. CIV S 09-1108 KJM EFB

vs.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN
FIRE DISTRICT,

14
Defendant.
15
/
16
On May 16, 2013, the court conducted a final pretrial conference. Nilesh

17
18

Choudhary and Joel Rapaport appeared for plaintiff Mark Thomsen; Joseph Salazar appeared for

19

defendant Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District.
As discussed with counsel, the court hereby directs the parties to meet and confer

20
21

about the following statements of undisputed and disputed facts, as some need clarification,

22

others appear to be in conflict with other acts, and still others characterize questions of law as

23

being questions of fact. In addition, as the facts are not arranged chronologically, they are

24

confusing.

25
26
1

1

A. UNDISPUTED AND DISPUTED FACTS

2
3

Undisputed fact 14 says that “this information was revealed for the first time
during the arbitration hearing,” but does not clearly identify the information revealed.

4
5

Disputed fact 20 appears to conflict with undisputed fact number 3, except for the
information about the raise.

6
7

Disputed fact 24, regarding plaintiff’s reinstatement to the rank of captain and to a
fire-house position appears to conflict with undisputed fact 6.

8

Disputed fact 25 appears to conflict with undisputed fact 14.

9

Disputed fact 33 is very difficult to understand and needs to be rewritten for

10

clarity.

11

Disputed fact 38 identifies someone named Roseberry by last name only.

12

Disputed fact 39 mentions a report without identifying the report by subject or

13

date.

14
15

Disputed facts 40, 43 and 46 appear to conflict with undisputed fact 9, at least on
the question whether Chief Mette told plaintiff not to talk about the DH investigation.

16
17

The last part of disputed fact 47, apparently about the Board’s duties to plaintiff,
is unclear.

18
19

Disputed fact 52 is difficult to follow and offers a different spelling of Board
Member Englenner’s name than appears elsewhere.

20

Disputed fact 54 is unclear regarding Monahan’s role in events. In addition, it is

21

not clear that disputed facts 54 and 56 are relevant, as the union is no longer a defendant. If

22

these facts are relevant, it is to the extent plaintiff claims that union officials were “acting at the

23

behest and encouragement of Chief Mette and General Counsel Margarita,” but the nature of the

24

officials’ actions appears to be undisputed. While the court currently assumes the relationship

25

between and among the actors identified here is disputed, the parties should clarify all aspects of

26

this matter.
2

1

Disputed fact 60 does not provide a first name for Miller.

2

Disputed fact 64 is not clear as to the relationship between Chavez and Margarita.

3

Disputed facts 73 to 76 relate to plaintiff’s claim that he was acting as a

4

whistleblower. Some of the “facts” the parties claim are in dispute are actually questions of law

5

or mixed questions of law and fact. See, e.g., Anthoine v. North Cent. Counties Consortium, 605

6

F.3d 740, 748 (9th Cir. 2010). These items should be revised accordingly.

7

The parties are directed to file their corrections and clarifications by May 27,

8

2013.

9

B. OTHER MATTERS

10
11
12
13

Motions in limine are due no later than May 24, 2013 by close of business;
oppositions are due by May 29, 2013 by close of business.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 20, 2013.

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3