Henry v. Bank of America Corporation et al

Filing 110

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 108 SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT. Jury Trial set for 9/6/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Pretrial Conference set for 8/25/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/25/10. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2010)

Download PDF
*E-Filed 6/25/10* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIP & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE USDC CASE NO.: 09-CV-0628 CRB DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney JOANNE HOEPER, State Bar #114961 Chief Trial Deputy KIMBERLY A. BLISS, State Bar #207857 Deputy City Attorney Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Telephone: (415) 554-3861 Facsimile: (415) 554-3837 E-Mail: kimberly.bliss@sfgov.org Attorneys for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALVIN CHOW AND RAYMOND LEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SHARON S. HENRY, Plaintiffs, vs. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, NANCY MENDOZA, CITY &COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALVIN CHOW, RAYMOND LEE, and DOE ONE through DOE TEN, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 09-CV-0628 RS STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT Case Filed: February 11, 2009 Trial Date: Not Set 1 n:\lit\li2009\090789\00636069.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On June 10, 2010, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and to submit a proposed Case Management Order. As mentioned in the parties' prior Joint Case Management Conference Statement (Doc. No. 93, filed April 4, 2010), Judge Breyer stayed Monell discovery in this action until there is a determination of whether or not the individual Officer defendants committed a constitutional violation. Accordingly, the parties have agreed on a schedule that allows for discovery, summary judgment and trial on the underlying constitutional claims and state tort claims against the City defendants, as well as the negligence claim against the Bank, first.1 Monell discovery and trial would follow only if necessary.2 This schedule also partially accommodates the anticipated maternity leave of the City's counsel, Ms. Bliss, from mid-December 2010 through May 14, 2011, by setting the dispositive motion hearing before her leave, and the discovery cut-off, pretrial briefing, pretrial conference and the trial date for after her return from leave. Another attorney from the office will cover the mediation and expert discovery in her absence in order to keep the case moving. The gap between the discovery cutoff and the pretrial filings also accommodates Plaintiff's counsel's July 2011 trial schedule. Accordingly, the parties' proposed schedule is as follows: Dispositive Motion Hearing Date: Mediation Deadline: Expert Witness designation and reports (per Rule 26(a)(2)): Initial: Rebuttal: Discovery cut-off (fact and expert, non-Monell): Pretrial filings due (pursuant to the Court's standing order): 1 December 9, 2010 February 19, 2011 April 21, 2011 May 12, 2011 June 9, 2011 August 15, 2011 See, e.g., Quintanilla v. City of Downey, 84 F.3d 353, 356 (9th Cir. 1996) ("The district court, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b), in the interest not only of convenience and judicial economy but also the avoidance of potential prejudice and confusion, bifurcated the trial of the individual police officers from the Chief and city."); Wilkins v. City of Oakland, 2006 WL 305972, *1-2 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (bifurcating Monell for purposes of trial). In the event the Court (on summary judgment) or the jury (at trial) holds that the underlying officers did not violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights, the Monell claims would also fail without the need for further discovery or proceedings against the City defendants. Long v. City and County of Honolulu, 511 F.3d 901, 907 (9th Cir. 2007). STIP & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CASE 2 n:\lit\li2009\090789\00636069.doc MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE USDC CASE NO.: 09-CV-0628 CRB 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pretrial Conference: Trial date: SO STIPULATED: Dated: June 25, 2010 SIEGEL & YEE August 25, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. September 5, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. By: s/Jose Luis Fuentes JOSE LUIS FUENTES Attorneys for Plaintiff SHARON HENRY Pursuant to General Order 45, X.B., the filer of this document attests that she has received the concurrence of this signatory to file this document. Dated: June 25, 2010 SEVERSON & WERSON By: s/Andrew S. Elliot ANDREW S. ELLIOT Attorneys for Defendants BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION AND NANCY MENDOZA Pursuant to General Order 45, X.B., the filer of this document attests that she has received the concurrence of this signatory to file this document. Dated: June 25, 2010 DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney JOANNE HOEPER Chief Trial Deputy KIMBERLY A. BLISS Deputy City Attorneys By: /s/ Kimberly A. Bliss KIMBERLY A. BLISS Attorneys for Defendants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALVIN CHOW AND RAYMOND LEE 3 STIP & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE USDC CASE NO.: 09-CV-0628 CRB n:\lit\li2009\090789\00636069.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIP & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE USDC CASE NO.: 09-CV-0628 CRB ORDER Pursuant to the Stipulation above, and for good cause shown, the Court sets the following Case Management Schedule: Dispositive Motion Hearing Date: Mediation Deadline: Expert Witness designation and reports (per Rule 26(a)(2)): Initial: Rebuttal: Discovery cut-off (fact and expert, non-Monell): Pretrial filings due (pursuant to the Court's standing order): Pretrial Conference: Trial date: April 21, 2011 May 12, 2011 June 9, 2011 August 15, 2011 August 25, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. 6 September 5, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. December 9, 2010 February 19, 2011 DATE: 6/25/10 ___________________________________ HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4 n:\lit\li2009\090789\00636069.doc

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?