Young v. Third and Mission Associates LLC et al

Filing 14

ORDER MEMORIALIZING AUGUST 19 REQUESTS. Plaintiff's response due August 29 at noon. Defendants' response due September 2 at noon.. Signed by Judge Alsup on August 19, 2014. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/19/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

FANYA YOUNG,
No. C 14-03627 WHA
Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

v.
THIRD AND MISSION ASSOCIATES, LLC,
d/b/a THE PARAMOUNT; RELATED
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY LP;
RELATED COMPANIES OF CALIFORNIA,
INC.; KIMBALL, TIRFY & ST. JOHN, LLP; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

15

ORDER MEMORIALIZING
AUGUST 19 REQUESTS

Defendants.
/

16
17

On August 18, plaintiff filed a motion to continue her motion for a preliminary injunction

18

so that she could depose Attorney Douglas Applegate and obtain documents from a 2005

19

malpractice action in state court. On August 19, the parties appeared for a hearing. Plaintiff was

20

given time to depose Attorney Applegate (or seek his signed declaration under oath) and obtain

21

his documents. This order memorializes the key points from the supplemental briefing schedule

22

set.

23

1.

24

By AUGUST 29 AT NOON, plaintiff shall file a brief addressing the following:
(i) the testimony from Attorney Applegate (assuming it was taken) and the records

25

from the 2005 malpractice lawsuit and the judicial findings therein (please append all relevant

26

documents);

27
28

(ii) the collateral estoppel and/or res judicata effect, if any, of the rulings made in
the unlawful detainer action against plaintiff (please address the order denying the motions to

1

dismiss and the judgment entered therein, and please explain how plaintiff can relitigate issues in

2

this federal action when they appear to have been decided by the state court);

3

(iii) show cause why plaintiff should not be barred from proceeding in this action

4

based on a finding that she could have raised her federal claims as affirmative defenses in the

5

state court unlawful detainer action that resulted in a judgment against plaintiff;

6

(iv) how the Code of Federal Regulations sections referenced in the complaint

7

could possibly apply to the unit at issue in this action (please address 24 C.F.R. 247.1 and

8

24 C.F.R. 247.2, identify which part of the definition of “subsidized project” applies herein, and

9

all proof that the unit at issue was a “subsidized project” during the relevant time period);

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

(v) the basis for subject-matter jurisdiction for each claim pled in the complaint
filed in this federal action; and

12
13

(vi) whether a Fair Credit Reporting Act claim has been pled in the complaint filed
in this action.

14

This is plaintiff’s last chance to make her best case for her motion for a preliminary

15

injunction. Please provide a declaration specifically identifying and appending all documents that

16

plaintiff is relying on for her motion.

17

2.

Defendants have until SEPTEMBER 2 AT NOON to respond. Please file a

18

declaration appending all relevant documents, including the orders from the unlawful detainer

19

action.

20

3.

Both sides are urged to keep their briefs to fewer than twenty pages.

21
22

Dated: August 19, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2