Arnold v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 25

INITIAL STATUS REPORT by County of Sacramento. (Paul, Jonathan) Modified on 11/19/2012 (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
1 Rivera&Associates 2 2 18 0 Har var d Str eet, Suite 3 1 0 Sacr amento , Califor nia 95 815 3 Tel: 916 -9 22 -1 2 0 0 Fax: 9 1 6 9 2 2 -1 3 0 3 4 J es s e M . R i vera, C S N 84259 J onat han B. P aul , CS N 21 5884 S h anan L. Hewi t t , CS N 200168 Kel ly A. Yokl ey, C S N 192015 5 6 7 8 Attorneys for Defendant, County of Sacramento 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 CONNIE ARNOLD, 13 Plaintiff, 14 vs. 15 16 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al. 17 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:12-cv-01998-LKK-EFB DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO’S INITIAL STATUS REPORT Scheduling Conference: December 10, 2012 Time: 9:00 a.m. Location: Courtroom 4 Before: Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton 18 19 A. 20 Defendant County of Sacramento is represented Jonathan B. Paul, Esq. of Rivera & 21 Parties/Counsel Associates. 22 B. 23 Plaintiff Connie Arnold has brought the subject action alleging violation of the Summary of Facts 24 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) - Title II, as well as other federal and state claims. Ms. 25 Arnold, who claims to be a person with a mobility disability and requires the use of the a 26 wheelchair, claims to have been denied access at the Sylvan Oaks Public Library and 27 Crosswoods Park in the City of Citrus Heights, within the County of Sacramento. Plaintiff 28 claims that denial of access took place in September 2011 and that she has been deterred from Defendant County of Sacramento’s Initial Status Report 1 returning to the park and library since that time. 2 C. 3 Defendant understands that all parties have been served. 4 D. 5 Defendant does not expect a joinder of additional parties. 6 E. 7 Plaintiff has filed a first amended complaint. Defendant has filed a first amended answer Service of Process Joinder of Additional Party Amendment of Pleadings 8 to said complaint. 9 F. 10 Statutory basis for jurisdiction and venue. Plaintiff contends that the court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 USC 11 Section 1331, to hear and determine plaintiff's ADA and Section 504 claims of the Rehabilitation 12 Action of 1973. Plaintiff further contends the court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 13 USC Section 1367 to hear and determine plaintiff's state law claims, because they are related to 14 plaintiff's federal claims and arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts. Plaintiff alleges 15 that venue is proper pursuant to 28 USC Section 1391(b), because the real property which is the 16 subject of this action Sylvan Oaks Public Library and Crosswoods Park are located in the Eastern 17 District. 18 19 Defendant acknowledges that jurisdiction and venue are appropriate in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 20 G. 21 Defendant County of Sacramento does not anticipate filing motions at this time. 22 Anticipated Motions and the Scheduling Thereof However, plaintiff has indicated that she may undertake a motion for summary judgment. 23 H. 24 Counsel for all parties have meet and conferred on the issue of discovery. The parties Anticipated Discovery 25 believe that a joint inspection of the Crosswoods Park and Sylvan Oaks Public Library should 26 initially go forward prior to formal discovery. The parties anticipate completing a joint 27 inspection prior to the pre-trial scheduling conference as an inspection is scheduled to go forward 28 on November 30, 2012. It is anticipated that progress towards resolution of the case can be made Defendant County of Sacramento’s Initial Status Report -2- 1 by way of the joint inspection. The parties agree that all other discovery should be deferred for 2 several months from the date of the pre-trial scheduling conference so that the joint inspection 3 may be completed as well as settlement negotiations. Further the parties have agreed to the 4 following discovery and scheduling plan: 5 Initial Scheduling Conference: December 10, 2012 6 120-Day Discovery Stay Until: April 9, 2013 7 Fact Discovery Cut-off: October 9, 2013 8 Expert Disclosures: December 9, 2013 9 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: January 9, 2014 10 Expert Discovery Cut-off: March 10, 2014 11 Last Day to File Dispositive Motions: May 12, 2014 12 Jury Trial: September 15, 2014 13 I. 14 Defendant is informed and believes that this is a limited disabled access claim for purely Future Proceedings 15 injunctive relief. As such, the parties have agreed to initially conduct the joint inspection and 16 attempt to resolve the case under the schedule proposed above. Further depending upon the 17 demand made by plaintiff following the joint inspection, the parties may utilize VDRP or request 18 the assistance of a magistrate judge for an early settlement conference before engaging in formal 19 discovery. 20 J. 21 None. 22 K. 23 Defendant Sunrise Recreation & Park District has timely demanded a trial by jury. 24 L. 25 Five to seven days. 26 M. 27 None anticipated at this time. 28 Special Procedures Demand Jury Trial Estimate of Trial Time Modification of Standard Pre-Trial Procedures /// Defendant County of Sacramento’s Initial Status Report -3- 1 N. 2 None. 3 0. 4 Defendant County of Sacramento is amendable to using the voluntary dispute resolution 5 program and/or submitting the matter to an early settlement conference with a magistrate judge 6 following the joint inspection. Relation to Other Case(s) Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program 7 P. 8 None at this time. Other Issues 9 10 Dated: November 19, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 11 RIVERA & ASSOCIATES 12 /s/ Jonathan B. Paul By: 13 JONATHAN B. PAUL Attorney for County of Sacramento 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant County of Sacramento’s Initial Status Report -4-

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?