Hoa v. Cate et al

Filing 157

ORDER RESETTING FURTHER CMC from 12/11/14 to 1/29/15. Case Management Statement due by 1/22/2015. Further Case Management Conference set for 1/29/2015 10:30 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 12/5/14. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Gene H. Shioda, Bar No. 186780
James A. Kim, Bar No. 220763
Jason Y. Lie, Bar No. 233614
LAW OFFICE OF GENE H. SHIODA
5757 West Century Blvd., Suite 700
Los Angeles, California 90045
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for PLAINTIFF PAUL HOA

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

John F. Geary (SBN 13777)
Raymond J. Fullerton (SBN 219264)
Robert W. Henkels (SBN 255410)
GEARY, SHEA, O’DONNELL, GRATTAN, AND MITCHELL
37 Old Courthouse Square, Fourth Floor
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for David F. Lopez, T. Gregory Stagnitto, Bridge Transport
Stag Leasing, Inc.
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
MARISA Y. KIRSCHENBAUER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
EDWARD R. FLUET (SBN: 247203)
MANEESH SHARMA (SBN: 280084)
Deputy Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for R. Riley, T. Alioto, T. Foss, G. Moon,
D. Moore, R. Chan, and R. Matteucci

22
23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
24
25

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

26
27
28

PAUL HOA, an individual.

Case No. 3:12-cv-02078-EMC

Plaintiff,
1

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER

1

vs.

2

RICHARD RILEY, an individual;
RONALD CHAN, an individual;
DAVID MOORE, an individual;
RAYMOND MATTEUCCI, an
individual; THOMAS ALIOTO, an
individual; GEORGE MOON, an
individual; TAMMY FOSS, an
individual, DAVID F. LOPEZ , an
individual; T. GREGORY
STAGNITTO, an individual; BRIDGE
TRANSPORT, an entity of unknown
form; STAG LEASING, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 to
20, Inclusive.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT & PROPOSED
ORDER
Date: December 11, 2014
Time: 1:30 PM
Dept: Courtroom 5, 17th Floor
Judge: Honorable Edward Chen

Defendants.

12
13
14
15

The parties to the above-entitled action jointly submit this JOINT CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER pursuant to the

16
17
18

Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California and Civil
Local Rule 16-9.

19

1. Jurisdiction & Service
20
21
22

A. All parties have been served.

B. No dispute as to Personal Jurisdiction as to Non-State Defendants.

23
24
25
26

2. Facts
PLAINTIFF:
This action is for money damages as a result of a catastrophic injuries

27
28

sustained by Plaintiff on July 27, 2011, while in custody at San Quentin
2

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER

1
2

Prison. Plaintiff was a prisoner in the custody of California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff was expected to be paroled in

3
4
5

April 2012. Plaintiff, as part of his prison work duties, was working between a
raised loading dock and commercial containers trucks, without any reasonable

6

safety precautions in this dangerous circumstance. The location was the
7
8
9

Waterfront Warehouse.
The commercial vehicle drivers were not permitted to turn their engines off,

10
11
12

speak to Plaintiff or get out of the vehicle for any reason. The trucks were also
delivering goods in a confined space and a high rate of delivery caused by a

13

prison population that has well exceeded design capacity for operations within any
14
15
16

imaginable range of safety. The requirements to supply the Prison its necessary
goods has surpassed the original design limits of the prison, and the loading docks

17
18
19

and loading procedures disregarded any safety protocol or safeguards. Plaintiff
was provided a green jump suit to maneuver between the container trucks and the

20

loading dock, and no other safety device, mechanism, procedure, training, or
21
22
23

assistance were provided. It appears before Plaintiff’s accident, inmates
complained about safety and situations similar to how the Plaintiff was injured to

24
25

the requested new defendants. In fact, one inmate was fired at Waterfront

26

Warehouse for complaining about safety weeks before Plaintiff was injured.

27

Without warning or opportunity to avoid, the rear of the commercial vehicle
28

3

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER

1
2

(Defendant Stag), where Plaintiff was performing the dangerous task of opening
the doors on the container prior to it approaching the raised loading dock, surged

3
4
5

towards him in moments, Plaintiff was crushed between the back of the container
and the raised loading dock.

6

As a result, Plaintiff was pinned against the wall by the commercial vehicle,
7
8

which continued to back up as the driver was unaware that Plaintiff was

9

pinned. Plaintiff suffered permanent and catastrophic injuries to his spinal column

10
11
12

at the neck, leaving him permanently paralyzed from the neck down. Plaintiff
also suffered a fractured jaw, severed nerves, crushed tissue, and deep

13

lacerations. Plaintiff is hospitalized and recovering but is unable to breathe
14
15
16

without the assistance of a ventilation machine to assist his damaged lungs and is
paralyzed without any movements in the arms or legs.

17
18
19

Plaintiff sued T. Gregory Stagnitto, Bridge Transport, Stag Leasing, Inc. and
David F. Lopez, the driver of the vehicle for negligence. Plaintiff filed a workers’

20

compensation action and the Claim number is 05721930.
21
22
23

DEFENDANTS STAG, ET AL (NON-STATE DEFENDANTS):
Defendants Bridge Transport, LLC, Stag Leasing, David F. Lopez, and T.

24
25

Gregory Stagnitto dispute liability for the incident and contend that fault rests

26

exclusively with plaintiff, CDCR, State of California, State employees, and

27

potentially other unknown entities/persons.
28

4

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER

1
2

Defendants contend that David F. Lopez was a properly licensed and trained
employee of Bridge Transport, which was delivering food products to San Quentin

3
4
5

Prison. Lopez was operating a truck and trailer owned by Stag Leasing, Inc.
Lopez was on state prison premises and was provided instructions by plaintiff and

6

the prison upon entering the premises, to include where to go, when to go, and
7
8

when to proceed in a reverse direction. Plaintiff was authorized to and did, in

9

fact, provide defendant with instructions to move in a reverse direction and to

10
11
12

properly guide the rear trailer to a metal loading dock ramp. Plaintiff provided
hand and arm signals to driver Lopez to move in reverse to the ramp, with which

13

Lopez complied, traveling at an extremely low rate of speed. The rig was
14
15
16

properly equipped with a functioning audible reverse alarm. When the trailer
was within feet of the ramp, plaintiff, for no apparent reason, placed himself

17
18
19

between the trailer and ramp whereby he sustained injury. The incident was fully
investigated by the CHP, who concluded plaintiff was at fault for the incident.

20

STATE DEFENDANTS:
21
22
23

Defendants Riley, Alioto, Foss, Moon, Moore, Chan, and Matteucci dispute
liability for the incident and contend that fault rests exclusively with Plaintiff,

24
25

Bridge Transport, LLC, Stag Leasing, David F. Lopez, and T. Gregory Stagnitto,

26

and potentially other unknown entities/persons. Defendants further deny

27

Plaintiff’s allegations that “inmates complained about safety and situations similar
28

5

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER

1
2

to how the Plaintiff was injured” to Defendants and that any inmate was “fired for
complaining about safety.”

Defendants further deny Plaintiff’s allegation that

3
4
5

work area and procedures for loading and unloading goods where Plaintiff
suffered his injury “disregarded any safety protocol or safeguards.”

6

3. Legal Issues
7
8

As to Defendants David F. Lopez, T. Gregory Stagnitto, Bridge Transport,

9

and Stag Leasing, Inc., there are no current procedural issues. These defendants

10
11
12

dispute liability and contend Greg Stagnitto should be dismissed in that the
incident occurred while Mr. Lopez was within the course and scope of a properly

13

formed Limited Liability Company.
14
15
16

State Defendants dispute liability.
4. Motions

17
18
19

The Court has not yet ruled on Defendants David F. Lopez, T. Gregory
Stagnitto, Michael Martel, Bridge Transport and Stag Leasing, Inc., Motion to

20

Dismiss State Defendants’ Cross Complaint, filed August 4, 2014. On December
21
22

4, 2014, the Court ordered additional briefs.

23
24

5. Amendment of Pleadings

25
26
27
28

Depending on the Court’s ruling on their Motion to Dismiss, the Non-State
Defendants anticipate cross/counter claims vs. persons, entities with legal
responsibility of the incident within 60 to 75 days.6. Evidence Preservation
6

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER

Prior to the litigation Plaintiff demanded that the parties preserve all

1
2

evidence in the matter by way of letter. All defendants have not and will not

3
4
5

destroy evidence. Limited discovery did commerce on State Defendants pursuant
to Court Order.

6

7. Disclosures
7

Plaintiff and Non-State Defendants provided disclosures. The parties

8
9

agreed to exchange amended and updated disclosures on or before December 18,

10
11
12

2014.
8. Discovery

13

Pre-complaint discovery was done as outlined in the prior court orders.
14
15
16

The Plaintiff and Non-State defendants reserve the right to re-depose individuals
who were previously deposed by plaintiff on the limited and circumscribed basis

17
18
19

allowed by the Court’s prior Order. These depositions were limited in time and
subject matter. Plaintiff and Non-state defendants also anticipate that they may

20

require more depositions than allotted to all defendants collectively under FRCP,
21
22
23

Rule 30(a).
State Defendants contend that re-deposing individuals previously deposed

24
25

by Plaintiff is unnecessary and overly burdensome, and if such depositions are

26

permitted they should be limited in time. State Defendants are willing to meet-

27

and-confer with non-State Defendants on this subject.
28

7

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER

1
2

9. Class Actions
This is not a class action.

3
4
5

10. Related Cases
There is no related civil cases.

6

11. Relief
7
8
9

Damages sought will be in excess of $40,000,000.00. Plaintiff is a
quadriplegic as a result of this incident. At this time, he is unable to breathe on his

10
11
12

own and is on a ventilator. Currently, medical care exceeds $3,000,000.00 with
significant care to do.

13

Plaintiff is deemed Totally Disabled. Plaintiff has a spinal cord injury with
14
15
16

subsequent tetraplegia, vent dependency, neurogenic bowel, neurogenic bladder
and pain. He is nursing care facility with 24 hour watch.

17
18
19

Plaintiff has the lost use of his hands, arms, legs, and limited neck
movement. He is currently living in a care center that is working with him to get

20

range of motion on his neck so that he can be ambulatory in a wheel-chair.
21
22
23

Plaintiff is on significant pain medication.
Defendants have no discovery/third-party confirmation as to plaintiff’s

24
25

injuries, so the above is plaintiff’s contention. Defendants contend damages to be

26

calculated as only those that are reasonable and necessary with application of

27

Hanif/Howell and other applicable law, dependent upon the scope of plaintiff’s
28

8

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER

1
2

claimed damages.
12. Settlement and ADR

3
4
5

The parties attended the first day of mediation on November 5, 2014 with
JAMS and Ken Gack as mediator.

The parties mediated the matter but were

6

unable to resolve it. Discovery must ensue before the Parties can continue
7
8

mediation discussions.

The parties have tentatively agreed to a second day of

9

mediation some 120 days out and set a preliminary date of April 3, 2015.

10
11
12

Completion of the scheduled mediation is contingent on the results of discovery.
13. Consent to Magistrate Judge For All Purposes

13

Whether all parties will consent to have a magistrate judge conduct all
14
15
16

further proceedings including trial and entry of judgment.
YES X NO by Plaintiff

17
18
19

14. Other References
Plaintiff will not agree to binding arbitration. Defendants Stag Leasing,

20

Inc., Bridge Transport, T. Gregory Stagnitto, and David F. Lopez will not agree to
21
22
23

binding arbitration.
15. Narrowing of Issues

24
25
26

This issue is premature at this time.
16. Expedited Trial Procedure

27

This issue is premature at this time.
28

9

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER

1
2

17. Scheduling
Please see exhibit A as a proposed scheduling.

3
4
5

18. Trial
Jury trial – 7 to 10 day trial.

6

19. Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons
7
8
9

To Plaintiff’s knowledge each party has filed the “Certification of Interested
Entities or Persons” required by Civil Local Rule 3-16.

10
11
12

20. Professional Conduct
All attorneys of record have reviewed the Guidelines for Professional

13

Conduct for the Northern District of California.
14
15
16

LAW OFFICE OF GENE H. SHIODA

17
18

Dated: December 4, 2014

By:

19
20

/S/
Gene H. Shioda
James A. Kim
Jason Y. Lie
Attorneys for Plaintiff PUAL HOA

21

John F. Geary
Robert W. Henkels
GEARY, SHEA, O’DONNEL, GRATTAN,
AND MITCHELL

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: December 4, 2014

By:

___________//S//_______________
John F. Geary
Robert W. Henkels
Attorneys for
David F. Lopez, T. Gregory Stagnitto,
10

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER

Bridge Transport, Stag Leasing, Inc.

1
2

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
MARISA Y. KIRSCHENBAUER
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
MANEESH SHARMA
Deputy Attorney General

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Dated: December 4, 2014

By:

/s/
Maneesh Sharma
Attorneys for Defendants
R. Riley, T. Alioto, T. Foss, G. Moon, D.
Moore, R. Chan, and R. Matteucci

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

11

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

1
2

The above JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED

3
4
5

ORDER is approved as the Case Management Order for this case and all parties
shall comply with its provisions.

6
7

The Court has re-set the Case Management for

1/29/15

at 10:30 a.m.

8
9
10

in this Department.

Joint CMC statement due 1/22/15.

OR

11
12
13

The Court has Adopted and affirmed the Scheduling which is Attached as Exhibit
A.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
15

S

RT

21

NO

20

dward
Judge E

ER

23

n

M. Che

A

H

22

R NIA

19

DERED
SO ORSTATES DISTRICT/
IS
IT UNITED IFIED
D
AS MO
JUDGE EDWARD CHEN
FO

12/5/14

LI

18

Dated:

UNIT
ED

17

RT
U
O

16

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

24
25
26
27
28

12

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER

EXHIBIT A

Action

Plaintiff

ADR completion date

October 30, 2015

Expert Witness
disclosure
Supplemental expert
disclosure
Discovery cut off
Pretrial motion cut off

November 2, 2015

Filing of Joint Pretrial
January 26, 2016
conference statement
due 21 days before Joint
Pretrial Conference date
Lodging of Exhibits

January 26, 2016

Serving and filing brief
of disputed issues of
law: Procedural and
evidence

January 26, 2016

Serving Jury
Instructions and
proposed findings of
fact

January 26, 2016

Serving and filing
January 26, 2016
statements from
designating information
from discovery
Objections due
proposed information
from discovery or
evidence

January 26, 2016

Final Pretrial
February 16, 2016
Conference (Tuesday at
2:30 PM)
Trial Date (Thursday is
dark)

February 22, 2016

Defendant State

Defendant Non-State

1. (1) Commencement and completion of any ADR proceedings;
2. (2) Disclosure of proposed expert or other opinion witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2), as well as supplementation of such disclosures;
3. (3) Conclusion of pretrial discovery and disclosure;
4. (4) Hearing pretrial motions;
5. (5) Counsel to meet and confer to prepare joint final pretrial conference statement and proposed
order and coordinated submission of trial exhibits and other material;
6. (6) Filing joint final pretrial conference statement and proposed order;
7. (7) Lodging exhibits and other trial material, including copies of all exhibits to be offered and
all schedules, summaries, diagrams and charts to be used at the trial other than for impeachment
or rebuttal. Each proposed exhibit must be premarked for identification. Upon request, a party
must make the original or the underlying documents of any exhibit available for inspection and
copying;
8. (8) Serving and filing briefs on all significant disputed issues of law, including procedural and
evidentiary issues;
9. (9) In jury cases, serving and filing requested voir dire questions, jury instructions, and forms
of verdict; or in court cases, serving and filing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law;
10.
(10) Serving and filing statements designating excerpts from depositions (specifying the
witness and page and line references), from interrogatory answers and from responses to
requests for admission to be offered at the trial other than for impeachment or rebuttal;
11.
(11) A date by which parties objecting to receipt into evidence of any proposed
testimony or exhibit must advise and confer with the opposing party with respect to resolving

such objection;
12.
(12) A final pretrial conference and any necessary Court hearing to consider unresolved
objections to proposed testimony or exhibits;
13.
(13) A trial date and schedule;
14.
(14) Determination of whether the case will be maintained as a class action; and
15.
(15) Any other activities appropriate in the management of the case, including use of
procedures set forth in the Manual for Complex Litigation.