Robles v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 70

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 1/21/22. Jury Trial is SET for 3/21/2022 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before District Judge John A. Mendez. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PABLO ROBLES,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:17-CV-01580 JAM-AC
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

Pursuant to court order, a Pretrial Conference was held via

18

video on January 21, 2022 before Judge John Mendez.

Kevin W.

19

Harris appeared as counsel for plaintiff; Carl L. Fessenden and

20

John R. Whitefleet appeared as counsel for defendant City of

21

Sacramento.

22

and orders:

After hearing, the Court makes the following findings

23

I. JURISDICTION/VENUE

24

Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a) and 42

25

U.S.C. § 1983, and has previously been found to be proper by order

26

of this court, as has venue.

27
28

Those orders are confirmed.

II. JURY/NON-JURY
Both parties have demanded a jury trial.
1

1

III. STATEMENT TO BE READ TO JURY

2

No later than March 14, 2022, the parties shall E-file a joint

3

statement of the case that may be read to the jury at the beginning

4

of jury selection.

5
6

IV. UNDISPUTED FACTS
1.

In connection with its operation of the County Jail, the

7

jail staff have access to a database called the Jail Information

8

Management System (“JIMS).

9

2.

The County does maintain JIMS.

10

3.

JIMS gives access to what information may have been input

11
12
13
14

by superior court staff about the inmate’s conviction or sentence.
4.

JIMS does not give access to the actual court records or

allow the County to view the court orders themselves.
5.

In April through May 2016, the Sheriff’s Office’s custom

15

was to comply with the information relative to court orders input

16

into JIMS.

17
18
19
20
21

6.

On April 3, 2016, following an arrest for DUI, Plaintiff

was held at the Sacramento County jail.
7.

County staff reviewed JIMS upon Pablo Robles’ intake into

the jail.
8.

JIMS indicated there was a court order for Pablo Robles

22

was to return to custody to complete his sentence in connection

23

with a prior sentence.

24
25
26

9.

On April 19, 2016, Plaintiff submitted a grievance that

he was already time served.
10.

On April 22, 2016, in response to the grievance Plaintiff

27

was informed the sentence from his Sacramento County Case 08F05507

28

is to run consecutively from his state prison commitment for a
2

1

Santa Clara County conviction.

2
3

11.

Review of the grievance during an appeal may also trigger

a further check/review of what has been input into JIMS.

4

12.

5

Plaintiff was released from custody from the Jail on May

6, 2016.

6
7

V. DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES
The parties jointly submit:

8
9
10

1.

that was deliberately indifferent to the Due Process Rights of
Plaintiff.

11
12

Whether there was a policy of the Sheriff’s Department

2.

Whether Plaintiff was damaged and to what extent.

Plaintiff also submits:

13

1.

Whether Plaintiff demanded to be brought before a judge

14

2.

Despite Pablo Robles’ Complaints about him being time

15

served and wanting to be taken before a Superior Court Judge,

16

County Jail Staff did not contact the Superior Court Staff to

17

determine whether the order in the JIMS was accurate.

18

3.

Had the County Jail Staff Contacted the Superior Court

19

Staff or taken Pablo Robles before a Superior Court Judge, they

20

would have discovered that the Court information in the JIMS was

21

inaccurate.

22
23

4.

Whether there was a delay in presenting Plaintiff before

a Judge?

24

5.

Whether the delay was intentional?

25

6.

Whether Defendant County's policy resulted in Plaintiff

26

being Falsely Imprisoned?

27

///

28

///
3

1

VI. DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

2

A.

3

Plaintiff’s Statement
Plaintiff anticipates filing the following Motions in

4

Limine:

5

1.

Whether plaintiff’s subsequent plea to the charge of

6 Driving Under the Influence is admissible?
7

2.

Whether Plaintiff’s subsequent conviction for possession

8 of cocaine should be admissible at the time of the trial?
9

3.

Whether additional information concerning Plaintiff’s

10 earnings which occurred after this case was taken off calendar
11 should be admissible regarding his earning capacity?
12

B.

13

Defendant anticipates filing the following Motions in Limine:

14

1.

15

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

28

A motion in limine to prevent the introduction of certain

exhibits on Plaintiff’s list.

26
27

A motion in limine to prevent the calling of certain

witnesses on Plaintiff’s list.

24
25

A motion in limine arguing a phone call to CDCR would have

resolved the issue.

22
23

A motion in limine to prevent evidence regarding alleged

failure of being “presented to a judge.”

20
21

A Motion in Limine to prevent evidence or witnesses not

produced or disclosed during discovery.

18
19

A Motion in Limine preventing Plaintiff or his counsel

from characterizing the information in JIMS as “false.”

16
17

Defendant’s Statement

VII. RELIEF SOUGHT
A.

Relief Sought by Plaintiff
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and special damages, past and
4

1

future wages, pain and suffering, and/or nominal damages, and

2

attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. section 1988.

3

B.

4

Relief Sought by Defendant
Defendant requests that Plaintiff take nothing in this action.

5

Defendant further requests it be awarded attorney’s fees and costs

6

of suit, and any additional relief as the Court deems just and

7

proper.

8
9

VIII. POINTS OF LAW
Trial briefs may be E-filed with the court no later than March

10

14, 2022.

Any points of law not previously argued to the Court

11

should be briefed in the trial briefs.

12

IX. ABANDONED ISSUES

13

Defendant submits that Plaintiff has abandoned any claims

14

against any individual defendants and any substantive due process

15

claims, and vicarious liability under state law.

16

abandoning any claims, but acknowledges the state law claim is

17

directly against the County.

18

Plaintiff denies

X. WITNESSES

19

Plaintiff anticipates calling the following witnesses:

20

1.

Pablo Robles

21

2.

Maria Cristina Andrade

22

3.

Clerk in Sacramento County Superior Court in Department 8

23

or Person Most Knowledgeable

24

4.

Devenna Wright

25

5.

Sheriff’s Records Officer Rachael Chandler

26

6.

Sheriff’s Records Officer Colleen Swartz

27

7.

Alexander McCamy

28

8.

Deputy Hardy (Badge No. 1434)
5

1

9.

Deputy Daniel (Badge No. 645)

2

10.

Deputy Monahan (Badge No. 452)

3

11.

Deputy PAM (Badge No. 31)

4

12.

Sgt. M. Lopez (Badge No. 179)

5

13.

Deputy Mattoon (Badge No. 1095)

6

14.

Officer S. Roby (Badge No. 529)

7

15.

Emily Christine Santamaria

8

16.

Maritza Ramirez

9

17.

Erica Garren

10

18.

Jessica McClain

11

19.

Pablo Robles

12

20.

Adult Division of Parole Supervisor who on April 6, 2016,

13

interviewed Plaintiff

14

21.

Parole Officer Garcia

15

22.

The Custodian of Records of the California Department of

16

Records or the Person Most Knowledgeable with the California

17

Department of Corrections

18

23.

Taylor Brophy

19

24.

Dan Nguyen

20

Defendant anticipates calling the following witnesses:

21

1.

Kelly Sullivan

22

2.

Devenna Wright

23

3.

Rachael Chandler, Sheriff’s Records Officer

24

4.

Colleen Swartz, Sheriff’s Records Officer

25

5.

Alexander McCamy, or the Person Most Knowledgeable from

26

Defendant County of Sacramento

27

6.

Pablo Robles

28

7.

Maria Cristina Andrade
6

1

Each party may call a witness designated by the other.

2

A.

No other witnesses will be permitted to testify unless:

3

(1)

The party offering the witness demonstrates that the

4

witness is for the purpose of rebutting evidence which could not be

5

reasonably anticipated at the Pretrial Conference, or

6

(2)

The witness was discovered after the Pretrial

7

Conference and the proffering party makes the showing required in

8

"B" below.

9

B.

Upon the post-Pretrial discovery of witnesses, the

10

attorney shall promptly inform the court and opposing parties of

11

the existence of the unlisted witnesses so that the court may

12

consider at trial whether the witnesses shall be permitted to

13

testify.

14
15

(1)

(2)

(3)

If time permitted, counsel proffered the witnesses

for deposition;

20
21

The court and opposing counsel were promptly

notified upon discovery of the witnesses;

18
19

The witnesses could not reasonably have been

discovered prior to Pretrial;

16
17

The evidence will not be permitted unless:

(4)

If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the

witnesses' testimony was provided opposing counsel.

22

XI. EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES

23

Plaintiff intends to introduce the following exhibits:

24

1.

Pablo Robles conviction records for a violation of Health

25

and Safety Code §11377 on July 20, 2011, in Sacramento County

26

Superior Court Case No. 08F05507.

27
28

2.

December 30, 2014, Pablo Robles motion to reduce his

sentence pursuant to California Proposition 47, the Sacramento
7

1

Superior Court reduced his sentence to a misdemeanor pursuant to

2

Penal Code §1170.18 reducing his sentence to eight months.

3

and correct copy of the signed order by Judge Marjorie Koller on

4

12/30/14 is attached to the First Amended Complaint as “Exhibit 2”.

5

3.

A true

12/20/14 Sacramento County Minute Orders of Judge Koller

6

(County Response to Request for Production of Documents 00027–

7

00029).

8

4.

9
10
11

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Operations Order

Arrest Types and Booking (County Response to Request for Production
of Documents 00040-00049).
5.

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Operations Order

12

Sentence Computation (County Response to Request for Production of

13

Documents 0005000).

14

6.

Pablo Robles’ May 2015 Plaintiff Pablo Robles motion to

15

reduce charges on which he was also serving time in California

16

State Prison-Solano redesignated as to misdemeanors pursuant to

17

Proposition 47.

18

his motion indicating that he had been time served dated May 27,

19

2015, and the cover letter from County of Santa Clara’s Public

20

Defender’s Office is attached to the First Amended Complaint as

21

“Exhibit 3.”

22

7.

23
24

Santa Clara County Superior Court order granted

Documents contained within the Parole Office for which

Plaintiff will be subpoenaing for Trial.
8.

Documents within the Possession, Custody, and Control of

25

the California Department of Correction for which Plaintiff will be

26

issuing a subpoena.

27

9.

Arrest Records of April 3, 2016, DUI arrest of Plaintiff

28

Pablo Robles.
8

1

10.

Court records of the April 5, 2016, Plaintiff PABLO

2

ROBLES

3

decision to not charge him at the time.

4

was scheduled to appear in court on his DUI charge and the

11.

The computer records of Sacramento County Superior Court

5

showing that on April 7, 2016,the Sacramento County Main Jail

6

website no longer indicated that he was being held on the DUI

7

charge, but now was being held on a count of Health and Safety Code

8

§ 11357 with an Early Prison Release Date of 7/29/16.

9

12.

April 11, 2016, County Jail Message Request from

10

Plaintiff PABLO ROBLES to Classification in the Sacramento Main

11

Jail to obtain copies of all documentation pertaining to his

12

incarceration i.e. charges, holds, etc. which is within the

13

possession custody and control of Defendant County of Sacramento.

14

13.

April 17, 2016, grievance form from Plaintiff PABLO

15

ROBLES regarding him being falsely imprisoned on his prior criminal

16

case for which he served all this time.

17

Lopez instead of attempting to determine if Plaintiff had served

18

his time stated as follows: “Mr. Robles if you feel that you are

19

not being held legally based on the previous court Rulings and

20

motion of your case I would encourage you to contact your attorney

21

so that everything can be cleared up and explained.”

22

accurate copy of this document was attached as “Exhibit 4 ” to the

23

First Amended Complaint.

24

14.

With a response by Sgt.

A true and

April 19, 2016, County Jail Message Request sent by

25

Plaintiff PABLO ROBLES to the Warden (Jail Commander) indicating

26

that he had been held since April 3, 2016 without having been taken

27

before a judge.

28

attached hereto as “Exhibit 5” to the First Amended Complaint.

A true and correct copy of that document is

9

1

15.

April 23, 2016, County Jail Message Request from

2

Plaintiff PABLO ROBLES to Floor Staff regarding whether he had a

3

“Parole Hold” which is within the possession, custody, and control

4

of Defendant County of Sacramento.

5

16.

Documentation concerning the April 26, 2016, incident

6

where Plaintiff was scheduled for court which was cancelled which

7

is being subpoenaed for trial from the Sacramento County Superior

8

Court;;

9

17.

April 26, 2016, Message Request form from Plaintiff Pablo

10

Robles to Records requesting his Central File, a copy of which was

11

attached as Exhibit “6” to his First Amended Compliant.

12

18.

April 26, 2016, Message Request form from Plaintiff Pablo

13

Robles to Floor Staff Requesting to be notified of any holds,

14

pending charges, or next Court date a copy of which is attached as

15

Exhibit “7” of his First Amended Complaint.

16

19.

April 28, 2016, Grievance form from Plaintiff PABLO

17

ROBLES regarding False Imprisonment.

18

that document is attached as Exhibit “8 ” to the First Amended

19

Complaint.

20

20.

A true and correct copy of

May 2, 2016, Grievance form from Plaintiff PABLO ROBLES

21

regarding Violation of his Human Rights as a Prisoner.

22

correct copy of that document is attached as Exhibit “9” to the

23

First Amended Complaint.

24

21.

A true and

May 3, 2016, Message Request form from Plaintiff PABLO

25

ROBLES to Floor Staff regarding any holds and his next court date.

26

The Officer informed him over the intercom in his cell that his

27

next court date would be May 9, 2016.

28

those documents are attached hereto as Exhibit “10” to the First
10

A true and correct copy of

1
2

Amended Complaint.
22.

May 3, 2016 Superior Court of California County of

3

Sacramento Calendaring change which is Exhibit 5 to Pablo Robles

4

Deposition.

5

23.

May 6, 2016, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Koller court

6

minute order attached as “Exhibit 11 ” to the First Amended

7

Complaint which states “Per CDCR, Defendant time served and to be

8

released F/W.”

9

24.

May 6, 2016 Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office

10

Transaction Receipt showing Plaintiff Pablo Robles was released on

11

May 6, 2016 (County 00001 in Response to Plaintiff’s Request for

12

Production of Documents).

13

25.

September 29, 2016, Claim Against Public Entity filed by

14

Pablo Robles with the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, a

15

true and correct copy of which is attached as “Exhibit 12” to the

16

First Amended Complaint.

17

26.

January 30, 2017, notice of rejection of claim, a true

18

and correct copy of which is attached as “Exhibit 13" to the First

19

Amended Complaint.

20

27.

5/20/16 Letter from Emily Christine Sanatamaria with

21

attached text messages regarding Pablo Robles missing child’s

22

birthday due to unlawful incarceration by County of Sacramento.

23
24
25

28.

Birthday Card sent by Plaintiff to son when he was being

imprisoned.
29.

Expenses incurred due to Pablo Robles’ unlawful

26

incarceration by Martiza Ramirez on his behalf attached as “Exhibit

27

B” to the Rule 26 Disclosures

28

30.

Expenses incurred due to Pablo Robles’ unlawful
11

1

incarceration by his sister Erica on his behalf attached to the

2

Rule 26 Disclosures as “Exhibit C.”

3

31.

Expenses incurred due to Pablo Robles’ unlawful

4

incarceration by Jessica McClain on his behalf attached to the Rule

5

26 Disclosures as “Exhibit D.”

6

32.

Expenses incurred by Pablo Robles directly due to

7

unlawful incarceration attached to the Rule 26 Disclosures as

8

“Exhibit E.;”

9

33.

Documents related to Interruption of Business and Injury

10

of Reputation in his business due to the unlawful incarceration

11

attached as “Exhibit F” to the Rule 26 Disclosures.

12

34.

Documents related to Pablo Robles Employment Search after

13

unlawful incarceration attached to the Rule 26 Disclosures as

14

“Exhibit G.”

15

35.

Pablo Robles 1099 for 2019.

16

36.

Pablo Robles 1099 for 2020.

17

37.

Checks from Old Sac Tattoo for 2021 work by Pablo Robles.

18

38.

Old Sac Tatto Consent Forms showing income received.

19

39.

Declaration of Rachel Chandler in Support of Defendant

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Motion for Summary Judgement (potential impeachment).
40.

Declaration of Alexander McCamy in Support of Defendant

Motion for Summary Judgement (potential impeachment).
41.

Declaration of Devenna Wright in Support of Defendant

Motion for Summary Judgment (potential impeachment).
42.

Declaration of Maria Cristina Andrade in Opposition to

Motion for Summary Judgement (potential recollection).

27

Defendant intends to introduce the following exhibits:

28

A.

Order for Re-Designation of Sentence dated December 30,
12

1
2
3
4
5

2014, People v. Robles, Sacramento County Case No. 08F05507.
B.

Minute order dated December 30, 2014, People v. Robles,

Sacramento County Case No. 08F05507.
C.

Criminal Complaint filed on June 6, 2016, People v.

Robles, Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 16MI010841.

6

D.

April 19, 2016, grievance; and April 22, 2016, response.

7

E.

Request for Calendaring Change dated May 3, 2016, People

8
9
10

v. Robles, Sacramento County Case No. 08F05507.
F.

Minute Order dated May 6, 2016, People v. Robles,

Sacramento County Case No. 08F05507.

11

Each party may use an exhibit designated by the other.

12

A.

13

unless:

14

No other exhibits will be permitted to be introduced

(1)

The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that

15

the exhibit is for the purpose of rebutting evidence which could

16

not be reasonably anticipated at the Pretrial Conference, or

17

(2)

The exhibit was discovered after the Pretrial

18

Conference and the proffering party makes the showing required in

19

paragraph "B," below.

20

B.

Upon the post-Pretrial discovery of exhibits, the

21

attorneys shall promptly inform the court and opposing counsel of

22

the existence of such exhibits so that the court may consider at

23

trial their admissibility.

24

unless the proffering party demonstrates:

25
26
27
28

(1)

The exhibits will not be received

The exhibits could not reasonably have been

discovered prior to Pretrial;
(2)

The court and counsel were promptly informed of

their existence;
13

1

(3)

Counsel forwarded a copy of the exhibit(s) (if

2

physically possible) to opposing counsel.

3

not be copied, the proffering counsel must show that he has made

4

the exhibit(s) reasonably available for inspection by opposing

5

counsel.

6

If the exhibit(s) may

As to each exhibit, each party is ordered to exchange copies

7

of the exhibit not later than fourteen (14) days before trial.

8

Each party is then granted five (5) days to file and serve

9

objections to any of the exhibits.

In making the objection, the

10

party is to set forth the grounds for the objection.

11

shall pre-mark their respective exhibits in accord with the Court’s

12

Pretrial Order.

Exhibit stickers may be obtained through the

13

Clerk’s Office.

An original and one (1) copy of the exhibits shall

14

be presented to Gabriel Michel, Deputy Courtroom Clerk, at 8:30

15

a.m. on the date set for trial or at such earlier time as may be

16

agreed upon.

17

e-mail at: [e-mail].

18

not objected to, it shall be marked and may be received into

19

evidence on motion and will require no further foundation.

20

exhibit which is objected to will be marked for identification

21

only.

Mr. Michel can be contacted at [phone] or via

22
23

The parties

As to each exhibit which is

Each

XII. DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS
A.

Plaintiff’s List

24

Plaintiff may offer the following discovery responses:

25

1.

Defendant County of Sacramento’s Rule 26 Disclosures;

26

2.

Defendant County of Sacramento’s Responses to Plaintiff

27
28

Pablo Robles’ First Set of Interrogatories;
3.

Defendant County of Sacramento’s Responses to Plaintiff
14

1

Pablo Robles’ First Set of Request for Production of Documents;

2
3

4.

Most Knowledgeable of Defendant County of Sacramento;

4
5

Plaintiff Pablo Robles’ Notice of Deposition of Person(s)

5.

Deposition of Defendant County of Sacramento's PMK

Alexander McCamy;

6

6.

Deposition of Pablo Robles; and

7

7.

Plaintiff’s Rule 26 Disclosures.

8

B.

9

Defendant may offer the following discovery responses:

10
11

A.

B.

C.

Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for the Production of

Documents Propounded by Defendant; and

16
17

Plaintiff’s Responses to Requests for the Production of

Documents Propounded by Defendant;

14
15

Plaintiff’s Responses to Interrogatories propounded by

Defendant;

12
13

Defendant’s List

D.

Defendant may offer the deposition testimony from

Plaintiff.

18

XIII. FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS

19

Pursuant to the court's Status Conference Order, all discovery

20

and law and motion was to have been conducted so as to be completed

21

as of the date of the Pretrial Conference.

22

confirmed.

23

pursuant to informal agreement.

24

not be enforceable in this court.

25

That order is

The parties are free to do anything they desire
However, any such agreement will

XIV. STIPULATIONS

26

To the extent possible, the Parties anticipate stipulating to

27

the admissibility of certain documents.

28

///
15

1

XV. AMENDMENTS/DISMISSALS

2

The Parties do not anticipate requesting any amendments to

3

pleadings, dismissals, or additions or substitutions of parties.
XVI. FURTHER TRIAL PREPARATION

4
5

A.

Counsel are directed to Local Rule 285 regarding the

6

contents of trial briefs.

7

March 14, 2022.

8
9

B.

Such briefs may be E-filed on or before

Counsel are further directed to confer and to attempt to

agree upon a joint set of jury instructions.

The joint set of

10

instructions shall be lodged via ECF with the court clerk on or

11

before March 14, 2022 and shall be identified as the "Jury

12

Instructions Without Objection."

13

there is dispute the parties shall submit the instruction(s) via

14

ECF as its package of proposed jury instructions also on or before

15

March 18, 2022.

16

include the “Jury Instructions Without Objection” and should be

17

clearly identified as “Disputed Jury Instructions” on the proposed

18

instructions.

19

As to instructions as to which

This package of proposed instructions should not

The parties shall e-mail a set of all proposed jury

20

instructions in word format to the Court’s Judicial Assistant, Jane

21

Klingelhoets, at: [e-mail].

22

C.

It is the duty of counsel to ensure that a hard copy of

23

any deposition which is to be used at trial has been lodged with

24

the Clerk of the Court pursuant to Local Rule 133(j).

25

depositions shall be lodged with the court clerk no later than

26

March 14, 2022.

27

this duty may result in the court precluding use of the deposition

28

or imposition of such other sanctions as the court deems

The

Counsel are cautioned that a failure to discharge

16

1

appropriate.

2

D.

The parties are ordered to E-file with the court and

3

exchange between themselves no later than March 14, 2022, a

4

statement designating portions of depositions intended to be

5

offered or read into evidence (except for portions to be used only

6

for impeachment or rebuttal).

7

E.

The parties are ordered to E-file with the court and

8

exchange between themselves no later than March 14, 2022, the

9

portions of Answers to Interrogatories and/or Requests for

10

Admission which the respective parties intend to offer or read into

11

evidence at the trial (except portions to be used only for

12

impeachment or rebuttal).

13

F.

Each party may submit proposed voir dire questions the

14

party would like the court to put to prospective jurors during jury

15

selection.

16

than March 14, 2022.

17

G.

Proposed voir dire should be submitted via ECF no later

Each party may submit a proposed verdict form that the

18

party would like the Court to use in this case.

19

forms should be submitted via ECF no later than March 14, 2022.

20

H.

Proposed verdict

In limine motions shall be E-filed separately on or

21

before March 11, 2022

22

before March 16, 2022 No reply briefs may be filed.

23

XVII. SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

24
25

No further formal Settlement Conference will be set in this
case at this time.

26

XVIII. AGREED STATEMENTS

27
28

Opposition briefs shall be E-filed on or

See paragraph III, supra.
///
17

1
2

XIX. SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES
None requested.

3
4

XX. IMPARTIAL EXPERTS/LIMITATION OF EXPERTS
Not applicable.

5

XXI. ATTORNEYS' FEES

6

The matter of the award of attorneys' fees to prevailing

7

parties pursuant to statute will be handled by motion in accordance

8

with Local Rule 293.

9
10

XXII. MISCELLANEOUS
No other issues have been identified.

11

XXIII. ESTIMATE OF TRIAL TIME/TRIAL DATE

12

The parties estimate three (3) to five (5) court days for

13
14

trial.

Trial will commence on or about March 21, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.

Counsel are to call Gabriel Michel, Deputy Courtroom Clerk, at

15

[phone], ten (10) days prior to trial to ascertain the

16

status of the trial date.

17

XXIV. OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER

18

Each party is granted seven (7) days from the date of this

19
20

Pretrial Order to object or respond to it via ECF.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

DATED:

January 21, 2022

/s/ John A. Mendez
THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
18