Mou v. City of San Jose et al

Filing 39

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT JOINT CMC STATEMENT filed by Chin-Li Mou, City of San Jose. (Burchfiel, Robert) (Filed on 5/29/2009)

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

THOMAS R. HOGAN, Esq. (#42048) Hogan Holmes & Usoz LLP 333 W. Santa Clara Street, Ste. 800 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone Number: [phone] Facsimile Number: [phone] E-Mail Address: [e-mail] Attorney for Plaintiff, CHIN-LI MOU RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney (#88625) NORA FRIMANN, Chief Trial Attorney (#93249) ROBERT BURCHFIEL, Sr. Deputy City Attorney (#112318) Office of the City Attorney 200 East Santa Clara Street San José, California 95113-1905 Telephone Number: [phone] Facsimile Number: [phone] E-Mail Address: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant, CITY OF SAN JOSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

CHIN-LI MOU, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, SAN JOSE PUBLIC LIBRARY EDUCATION PARK BRANCH, Defendants.

Case Number: C07-05740 JF JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT Date: Time: Courtroom: Judge: June 12, 2009 10:00 a.m. 3 Hon. Jeremy Fogel

The parties hereby submit their Joint Case Management Statement. 1. A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS UNDERLYING THIS ACTION This action alleges violation of the Federal Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), arising from the suspension of Plaintiff Mou's library privileges for a period of six months reduced to four months within the City of San Jose Library system. Plaintiff Mou believes
1 JOINT CMC STATEMENT Case Number: C07-05740 JF 560718

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

that her constitutional rights have been violated by Defendant City of San Jose in taking such action in suspending her library privileges. Ms. Mou believes these constitutional rights which were violated are: (1) freedom of speech; (2) unequal treatment; and (3) due process. Plaintiff further alleges that she has "suffered severe mental distress and was injured in her health as a direct result of the action taken by Defendants." Neither parties dispute the fact that the City of San Jose Library Department had a policy and procedure in place for suspensions of library privileges and available procedure for a hearing to review the grounds for the suspension. Ms. Mou availed herself of the hearing process and attended a Suspension Review Hearing with her attorney before the Assistant Library Director for the City of San Jose Public Library. Ms. Mou's initial suspension from the San Jose Public Library was from November 1, 2006 to May 1, 2007. After Ms. Mou's Appeal Hearing which was held on January 4, 2007 the suspension was reduced to four months which therefore resulted in a condition that she could return on March 1, 2007. There were a number of conditions in which she was allowed to regain her library privileges which were outlined in a correspondence of January 18, 2007. 2. THE PRINCIPAL FACTUAL ISSUES WHICH THE PARTIES DISPUTE Almost all the underlying facts and circumstances existing at the time for the basis of Plaintiff Mou's suspension are in dispute. 3. THE PRINCIPAL LEGAL ISSUES WHICH THE PARTIES DISPUTE The first issue in dispute is whether or not there is a liberty interest within the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment within Plaintiff's ability to freely use the public library when she was suspended from such privileges. A second area of legal dispute would be the determination of the amount of process which is due before the Defendants can act to suspend a person such as Plaintiff Mou from access to the library.
2 JOINT CMC STATEMENT Case Number: C07-05740 JF 560718

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

4.

OTHER FACTUAL ISSUES WHICH REMAIN UNRESOLVED FOR THE REASONS STATED BELOW AND HOW THE PARTIES PROPOSE TO RESOLVE THOSE ISSUES None.

5.

THE PARTIES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED AND THE REASONS None.

6.

THE ADDITIONAL PARTIES WHICH TO THE BELOW SPECIFIED PARTIES INTEND TO JOIN IN THE INTENDED TIME FRAME FOR SUCH JOINDER None currently known.

7.

THE FOLLOWING PARTIES CONSENT TO A ASSIGNMENT OF THIS CASE TO A U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff has declined consent to assignment of this case to a United States

Magistrate Judge for jury trial. DISCLOSURES Concluded. DISCOVERY Discovery cut-off was on February 27, 2009. MOTIONS Defendant anticipates filing a dispositive motion no later than June 19, 2009. ///// ///// ///// ///// ///// ///// ///// ///// /////
3 JOINT CMC STATEMENT Case Number: C07-05740 JF 560718

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
JOINT CMC STATEMENT

TRIAL SCHEDULE Defendant City would desire a jury trial in October of 2009. Both Plaintiff and Defendants demand a jury trial.

Dated: May 29, 2009

By: _______/S/______________________ THOMAS R. HOGAN Attorney At Law Attorney for Plaintiff, CHIN-LI MOU

Dated: May 29, 2009

RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney

By: ________/S/_____________________ ROBERT BURCHFIEL Sr. Deputy City Attorney Attorney for Defendant, CITY OF SAN JOSE

4 Case Number: C07-05740 JF 560718