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).

Download PDF
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

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?