Yount -v- City and County of San Francisco

Filing 8

ORDER VACATING CMC, ADOPTING PARTIES' JOINT CMC STATEMENT. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/9/2011. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2011)

FO

LI

ER

R NIA

S

aria
Judge M

H

6

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
KATHY YOUNT and ESTATE OF DYLAN YOUNT

RT

5

ames

-Elena J

NO

4

TED

GRAN

A

3

UNIT
ED

2

ORESTES A. CROSS, State Bar No. 250471
THOMAS J. O’BRIEN, State Bar No. 274969
WALSTON CROSS, Attorneys
735 Montgomery Street, Suite 250
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

RT
U
O

1

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

7
8

C

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

F
D IS T IC T O
R

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

KATHY YOUNT, ESTATE OF DYLAN
YOUNT,

Case No. CV 11 1141 MEJ
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Plaintiff,
Trial Date:
Hearing Date:
Time:

vs.

Not Set
June 16, 2011
10:00 a.m.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE
DEPARTMENT, SAN FRANCISCO FIRE
DEPARTMENT, DOES 1-5, Inclusive,
Defendants.

17
18
19

The parties submit the following case management statement:

20

1.

21

Plaintiff filed this case in federal court and asserts federal question jurisdiction. All defendants

Jurisdiction and Service

22

have been served and have answered. Defendants do not contest federal jurisdiction at this time, nor

23

do defendants expect to contest personal jurisdiction or venue.

24
25

2.

26

Plaintiff’s Facts:

27

On February 16, 2010, Dylan Yount walked on to the ledge of his building in the Union Square

28

Facts

neighborhood of San Francisco, California. After a crowd formed, officers jointed the crowd in
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT;
CASE NO. CV 11 1141

1

c:\users\admin\desktop\yount draft cms.doc

1

encouraging Mr. Yount to “get it over with” and jump. After being encouraged by the crowd, Mr.

2

Yount jumped off the building. Upon falling, Mr. Yount was not medically treated and died.

3

Defendant’s Facts:

4

On February 16, 2010, Dylan Yount walked on to the ledge of his building in the Union Square

5

neighborhood of San Francisco, California. After a crowd formed, Mr. Yount jumped off the building

6

in an apparent suicide attempt. Mr. Yount was killed as a result of the jump.

7
8

The parties expect that the following facts will be in dispute:

9

1.

10

Whether City officials, namely San Francisco Police Department officers, encouraged

Mr. Yount to jump off of his building; and
2.

The nature of the City's response to Mr. Yount's apparent suicide.

13

3.

Legal Issues

14

Plaintiff’s Issues:

15

1.

Whether the City violated any duty of care owed to Mr. Yount.

16

2.

Whether the City, and its employees, encouraged Mr. Yount to commit suicide.

17

3.

Whether the City's response to Mr. Yount's apparent suicide violated Mr. Yount's rights

11
12

18
19
20
21
22

under the federal constitution;
4.

Whether there is any municipal or supervisorial liability for the City’s failure to control

the crowd, and control the officers,
5.

Whether the City’s conduct with regard to Mr. Yount's death violated Mr. Yount's

rights under the California Constitution.

23
24
25

Defendant’s Issues:

26

The Complaint makes several claims arising out of Mr. Yount's apparent suicide. The

27

following legal issues will be disputed as to these claims:

28
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT;
CASE NO. CV 11 1141

2

c:\users\admin\desktop\yount draft cms.doc

1

1.

2

apparent suicide;

3

2.

4
5
6
7
8

Whether the City violated any duty of care owed to Mr. Yount in responding to his

Whether the City's response to Mr. Yount's apparent suicide violated Mr. Yount's rights

under the federal constitution;
3.

Whether there is any municipal or supervisorial liability for the SFPD's response to Mr.

Yount's apparent suicide; and
4.

Whether the SFPD's response to Mr. Yount's apparent suicide violated Mr. Yount's

rights under the California Constitution.

9
10

4.

Motions

11

Defendants anticipate moving for summary judgment. Specifically, defendants anticipate

12

filing a narrow motion for summary judgment after a limited, mutual exchange of discovery, described

13

further below. Should this narrow motion for summary judgment not dispose of the case entirely,

14

discovery will be completed and defendants request leave to file a second motion for summary

15

judgment at the conclusion of discovery. The parties have met and conferred concerning defendants'

16

anticipated motions.

17

6.

Evidence Preservation

18

Defendants have asked the relevant City departments to preserve evidence, have gathered

19

pertinent documentation regarding the City's response to Mr. Yount's apparent suicide, and believe

20

that no evidence has been lost or destroyed.

21
22

7.

23

The parties have stipulated that they will not make initial disclosures at this time, and will

24

Disclosures

instead proceed with the discovery identified below in section 8.

25
26

8.

Discovery

27

The parties have met and conferred about discovery and report that they have agreed to a

28

mutual, limited exchange of discovery in advance of defendants' anticipated motion for summary
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT;
CASE NO. CV 11 1141

3

c:\users\admin\desktop\yount draft cms.doc

1

judgment. The discovery anticipated by each party is as follows (and does not prejudice either party's

2

right to seek further discovery should defendants' motion for summary judgment not dispose of the

3

case entirely):

4
5
6
7
8
9

1.

Defendants intend to depose Beto "Mooncricket" Lopez, a filmmaker who allegedly

filmed the suicide attempt, and subpoena Mr. Lopez's footage of the event;
2.

Defendants will produce documents concerning the events of February 16, 2010.

Defendants shall provide these documents by Thursday, June 23, 2011.
3.

Plaintiffs intend to depose five to ten percipient witnesses from the City solely on the

topic of the events that occurred on February 16, 2010. Plaintiffs are presently unaware of the

10

identities of these witnesses and expect to become aware of their identities after being furnished the

11

documents mentioned above.

12

4.

The parties anticipate that documents can be exchanged and depositions completed

13

within 180 days.

14
15

9.

Class Actions

16

This is not a class-action matter.

17
18

10.

Related cases

19

The parties are unaware of any related cases.

20

11.

21

Plaintiffs are is seeking general, special, and punitive damages.

Relief

22
23

12.

Consent to Magistrate Judge for All Purposes

24

In accordance with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Section 636(c), the parties hereby consent to

25

have United States Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James conduct any and all further proceedings in the

26

case, including trial, and order the entry of a final judgment, and voluntarily waive the right to proceed

27

before a United States District Judge, subject to the following sentence: The parties do not consent to

28

proceed before any Magistrate Judge other than the Honorable Maria-Elena James.
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT;
CASE NO. CV 11 1141

4

c:\users\admin\desktop\yount draft cms.doc

1
2

13.

3

The parties do not believe the case is suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a special

4

Other Reference

master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

5
6

14.

Narrowing of Issues

7

The issues can be narrowed by defendants' anticipated motion for summary judgment.

8
15.

9

Expedited Schedule

The parties do not request an expedited schedule at this time.

10
11
12

17.

13

The parties propose that the Court refrain from setting a trial date or any pre-trial deadlines in

14

Scheduling

light of defendants' anticipated motion for summary judgment.

15
16

18.

17

The parties have demanded a jury trial. The length and scope of trial would depend on what

18

Trial

claims survive summary judgment, but a five to ten day trial would be anticipated.

19
20

19.

21

Plaintiff: Plaintiff is not aware of any non-party interested entities or persons.

22

Defendants: By the terms of Rule 3-16, defendants are exempt from the certification

23

Disclosure of Non-Party Interested Entities or Persons

requirement.

24

20.

25

None at this point.

26

///

27

///

28

Other matters

///
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT;
CASE NO. CV 11 1141

5

c:\users\admin\desktop\yount draft cms.doc

1

Dated: June 9, 2011

WALSTON CROSS, ATTORNEYS

2
3
___________/s/______________________
Thomas J. O’Brien
Attorneys for Plaintiff

4
5
6
Dated: June 9, 2011

DENNIS J. HERRERA,
CITY ATTORNEY

7
8
9

___________/s/______________________
Marc R. Lewis
Attorneys for Defendants

10
11
12
13
14

*Pursuant to GO 45, the electronic signatory has obtained approval from this signatory.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT;
CASE NO. CV 11 1141

6

c:\users\admin\desktop\yount draft cms.doc