Arnold v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 28

STATUS REPORT pursuant ot Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) by Connie Arnold. (Lim, Mary) Modified on 11/20/2012 (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5

JEFF A. HARRISON (SBN 151227)
MARY J. LIM (SBN 272170)
METZ & HARRISON, LLP
139 Richmond Street
El Segundo, CA 90245
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

6
7

Attorneys for Plaintiff,
CONNIE ARNOLD

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CONNIE ARNOLD

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

15
16
17
18

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO;
SACRAMENTO PUBLIC LIBRARY
AUTHORITY; SUNRISE
RECREATION & PARK DISTRICT;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

19
20

Defendants.

21

) Case No.: 2:12-CV-01998-LKK-AC
)
Civil Rights
)
) PLAINTIFF CONNIE ARNOLD’S
) STATUS REPORT FOLLOWING
) MEETING OF COUNSEL
) PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f)
)
) Scheduling Conference
)
) Date: December 10, 2012
) Time: 1:30 p.m.
)
)
)

22
23
24
25
26
27

A. Parties/Counsel
Plaintiff CONNIE ARNOLD (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Arnold”) is represented by
Jeff A. Harrison and Mary J. Lim of Metz & Harrison, LLP.
B. Summary of Facts
This Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Section 504 of the

28
________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S STATUS REPORT
Case No. 2:12-CV-01998-LKK-AC
1

1

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), and California Civil Rights action

2

involves a disabled individual who seeks to live her life fully and model

3

independence as part of mainstream society without being deterred by unlawful

4

access barriers in public facilities, and who therefore seeks to enforce her rights to

5

full and equal access to the services, programs, and activities offered at the Sylvan

6

Oaks Public Library (“Library”) and Crosswoods Park (“Park) in the City of Citrus

7

Heights. The issue for this case is whether Defendants are operating their programs,

8

services or activities in such a manner that they exclude, deter, or deny the benefits of

9

these programs to Plaintiff on the basis of her disability.

10

Ms. Arnold is a qualified disabled person who cannot stand or walk as a result

11

of the progressive effects of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and requires the use of a

12

wheelchair for mobility.

13

Defendants are public entities subject to the obligations and requirements under

14

Title II of the ADA, Section 504, and California state law, requiring full and equal

15

access to public facilities pursuant to Government Code §§ 11135 and 4450 et seq.

16

Defendants COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO PUBLIC

17

LIBRARY AUTHORITY have control and/or legal responsibility for the design,

18

construction, maintenance, ownership, and/or operation of the Library. Defendant

19

SUNRISE RECREATION & PARK DISTRICT has control and/or legal

20

responsibility for the design, construction, maintenance, ownership, and/or operation

21

of the adjacent Park.

22

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to meet their obligations under

23

Department of Justice regulations to remove physical barriers and/or modify their

24

policies, practices, and procedures where necessary to eliminate discrimination.

25

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to provide, among other things:

26

accessible disabled parking, accessible pedestrian paths of travel, and accessible

27

public restrooms. Plaintiff has been, and continues to be excluded and denied the

28
________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S STATUS REPORT
Case No. 2:12-CV-01998-LKK-AC
2

1

benefits and privileges offered by Defendants at the Library and Park and has

2

suffered damages as a result; however, due to Ms. Arnold’s advocacy and desire to

3

catalyze greater disabled access among public entities, Plaintiff is waiving all

4

damages in this matter in order to focus on comprehensive injunctive relief.

5

Further, although not a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit, shortly after Ms.

6

Arnold’s experiences at the Library and Park, Mr. Arnold sent a letter by email to

7

representatives of Sacramento County, the Library Authority, and the City of

8

Sacramento seeking to resolve her claims regarding the inaccessibility of the subject

9

facilities. Ms. Arnold did not receive a response to her letter, and consequently,

10

without further recourse, Ms. Arnold brought this lawsuit.

11
12
13
14
15
16

C. Service of Process
All Defendants have been served and have filed responsive pleadings.
D. Joinder of Additional Parties
It is unlikely that any additional parties will appear in this matter.
E. Amendments of Pleadings
Plaintiff only anticipates seeking an amendment to the operative complaint if

17

barriers beyond what is already identified in the complaint are found during the

18

parties’ formal site inspection.

19
20

F. Statutory Basis for Jurisdiction and Venue
This Court currently has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

21

1331 to hear and determine Plaintiff’s ADA and Section 504 claims. This Court has

22

supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to hear and determine

23

Plaintiff’s state law claims because they are related to Plaintiff’s federal claims and

24

arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts.

25

Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and is founded on

26

the fact that the real property which is the subject of this action is located in the

27

Eastern District and that Plaintiff’s causes of action arose in the Eastern District.

28
________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S STATUS REPORT
Case No. 2:12-CV-01998-LKK-AC
3

1
2

G. Anticipated Motions and the Scheduling Thereof
If the Parties are unable to reach a settlement, Plaintiff will be filing a Motion

3

for Summary Judgment as to the issue of liability and a Motion for Permanent

4

Injunction to stop the continuing discrimination.

5
6
7
8

In conjunction with the dates proposed for discovery, infra, the Parties propose
the following date regarding the filing of dispositive motions:
Last Day to File Dispositive Motions:

May 12, 2014

H. Anticipated Discovery and the Scheduling Thereof

9

The Parties have agreed to a joint inspection of the subject facilities to be held

10

on November 30, 2012. It is anticipated that progress towards resolution of the case

11

can be made by way of the joint inspection.

12

In the interests of focusing on settlement efforts, the Parties have agreed to a

13

stay of written discovery and depositions until April 9, 2013. Further, the Parties

14

propose the following dates regarding discovery:

15

Fact Discovery Cut-off:

October 9, 2013

16

Initial Expert Disclosures:

December 9, 2013

17

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures:

January 9, 2014

18

Expert Discovery Cut-off:

March 10, 2014

19

Jury Trial:

September 15, 2014

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

I. Future Proceedings
Plaintiff requests that a further status conference be scheduled for April 2013.
J. Special Procedures
None.
K. Demand for Jury Trial
Plaintiff has timely demanded a trial by jury.
L. Estimate of Trial Time
3-5 days.

28
________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S STATUS REPORT
Case No. 2:12-CV-01998-LKK-AC
4

1
2
3
4
5

M. Modification of Standard Pre-Trial Procedures
None anticipated at this time.
N. Relation to Other Case(s)
None.
O. Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program

6

Plaintiff is amenable to using the voluntary dispute resolution program and/or

7

submitting the matter to private mediation or an early settlement conference after the

8

joint inspection with a magistrate judge.

9

P. Other Issues

10

None at this time.

11

Plaintiff CONNIE ARNOLD hereby requests that its counsel, which is located

12

in El Segundo, California, be permitted to appear for the pre-trial scheduling

13

conference by telephone. All counsel planning to appear by telephone will make

14

arrangements among themselves to set up a conference call at the scheduled time

15

with all participants on the line before calling chambers.

16
17

Dated: November 20, 2012

METZ & HARRISON, LLP

18
19
20
21

By:

s/-Mary J. Lim
JEFF A. HARRISON
MARY J. LIM
Attorneys for Plaintiff, CONNIE ARNOLD

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
________________________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S STATUS REPORT
Case No. 2:12-CV-01998-LKK-AC
5