Maldonado et al v. City of Gilroy et al

Filing 47

ORDER CONTINUING STAY TO JUNE 21, 2010 re 46 Joint Case Management Statement. Case Management Conference set for 6/21/2010 10:00 AM. Joint Case Management Conference statement due by 6/11/2010. The Statement shallinclude, among other things, an update on Plaintiff's underlying criminal appeal, and if the stay should be lifted, a good faith discovery plan with a proposed date for the close of all discovery. Signed by Judge James Ware on 12/8/2009. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2009)

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
M IG U E L M Á R Q U E Z A c tin g C o u n ty C o u n s e l C o u n ty o f S a n ta C la r a S a n Jo s e , C a l i fo r n i a

UNIT ED

MIGUEL MÁRQUEZ, Acting County Counsel (S.B. #184621) MARK F. BERNAL, Deputy County Counsel (S.B. #173923) OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL S DISTRICT 70 West Hedding, East Wing, 9th Floor TE C San Jose, California 95110-1770 TA Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, DEPUTY R. URENA, DEPUTY S. LOPEZ, AND DEPUTY J. TRAN

RT U O

S

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E CALIFORNIA FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF R (San Jose) N

D IS T IC T R

OF

GERALDINE MALDONADO et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF GILROY et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No.

C08-05642 JW

JOINT FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT ORDER CONTINUING STAY OF ACTION Date: December 14, 2009 TO : 10 00 2010; TimeJUNE :21, a.m. CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT Crtrm: 8, 4th FloorCONFERENCE Judge: Judge James Ware

The parties met and conferred in compliance with Local Rule 16-1, et seq. to prepare this Joint Case Management Statement. Pursuant to this Court's June 25, 2009 Order [Doc #45], this case is currently stayed pending the outcome of Plaintiff's criminal appeal. The purpose of this Statement, in part, is to update the Court regarding the status of that appeal and its impact on these civil proceedings. That information is set forth below in section 11 "Scheduling." 1. Jurisdiction and Service: This court has subject matter jurisdiction based upon Plaintiffs' claims brought under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1985. All parties have been served. // //
J o in t Further Case Management C o n fe r e n c e Statement

1

C 0 8 -0 5 6 4 2 JW

A

C

LI

FO

m Judge Ja

es Ware

R NIA

DERED SO OR ED IT IS DIFI AS MO

NO

RT

H

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
M IG U E L M Á R Q U E Z A c tin g C o u n ty C o u n s e l C o u n ty o f S a n ta C la r a S a n Jo s e , C a l i fo r n i a

2.

Facts: Plaintiff Geraldine Maldonado and her children, Plaintiffs Priscilla Maldonado and M.M.,

attended a car show at the Santa Clara County Fairgrounds on September 2, 2007. Defendants Gallacinao and Callahan (Gilroy Police Department officers) and Defendants Urena, Lopez, and Tran (Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office deputies) provided security for the car show. Defendant officers/deputies escorted Tavo Collazo from the Fairgrounds for violation of car show rules (Mr. Collazo is married to Plaintiff Geraldine Maldonado's niece). Plaintiffs contend that, without cause or justification, Defendants also attempted to escort Plaintiff Geraldine Maldonado from the Fairgrounds and used excessive force against her by, inter alia, grabbing her arms, grabbing her hair, striking her in the face, and shocking her with a tazer. Defendants deny that they acted without cause or justification, used excessive force, and that any officer/deputy applied a tazer to Plaintiff Geraldine Maldonado's body. Defendants contend that Plaintiff Geraldine Maldonado verbally interfered with the escort of Mr. Collazo and failed to comply with instructions to not interfere, thus resulting in the decision to also escort her from the Fairgrounds. Defendants further contend that Plaintiff Geraldine Maldonado resisted efforts to escort her from the Fairgrounds by, inter alia, pushing/hitting Defendant Callahan in the chest, pulling away from Defendants' grasps, swinging her arm at Defendant Gallacinao, and spitting at Defendant Gallacinao's face, thus justifying the use of force to restrain and arrest Plaintiff Geraldine Maldonado. Plaintiffs deny all of these contentions. Plaintiffs further contend that Defendants Gallacinao and Maldonado falsely arrested Plaintiff Geraldine Maldonado and that Defendants Urena, Lopez, and Tran conspired to author arrest reports that falsely stated that Plaintiff Geraldine Maldonado spat at or upon Defendant Gallacinao. Defendants deny these contentions. A jury convicted Plaintiff Geraldine Maldonado of two misdemeanors: battery upon a peace officer; and resisting/delaying/obstructing a peace officer. A motion for new trial was denied in May 2009. Thereafter, the court appointed appellate counsel and an appeal has been filed. (See, Section 11, infra.)
J o in t Further Case Management C o n fe r e n c e Statement

2

C 0 8 -0 5 6 4 2 JW

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
M IG U E L M Á R Q U E Z A c tin g C o u n ty C o u n s e l C o u n ty o f S a n ta C la r a S a n Jo s e , C a l i fo r n i a

3.

Legal Issues: The parties dispute whether Plaintiffs Priscilla Maldonado and M.M. have standing to sue

the Defendants for conspiracy to violate civil rights (Claim No. 9 to Plaintiffs' Complaint). The alleged conspiracy pertains to the false arrest and prosecution of only Plaintiff Geraldine Maldonado. The parties dispute whether Plaintiff Geraldine Maldonado still has a cognizable 42 U.S.C. section 1985 (conspiracy) claim against Defendants. A jury convicted Plaintiff Geraldine Maldonado of the crimes for which she was arrested. Consequently, her arrest and prosecution were not falsely made and her civil rights were not violated by the arrest and prosecution. Thus, the reports prepared by Defendants did not cause any harm or damage to Plaintiff Geraldine Maldonado. (Pierce v. Stinson, 493 F.Supp. 609, 611 (D.C.Tenn.1979), citing Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 254 (1978) [purpose of 42 U.S.C. section 1985 is to compensate for harm actually caused by overt acts of conspiracy].) However, as indicated below, the original conviction is currently on appeal. The parties dispute whether the City of Gilroy and County of Santa Clara can be held liable under the theory of respondeat superior for the alleged 42 U.S.C. section 1985 claim against Individual Defendants. The parties dispute whether punitive damages may be awarded against the City of Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara. (City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc, 453 U.S. 247, 259-71 (1981); see also, Ninth Circuit Manual of Modern Civil Jury Instructions, Comment to Jury Instruction No. 5.5.) 4. Motions: There are no prior or pending motions. All Defendants are contemplating the following motions: summary judgment; motion to strike punitive damages as to the City of Gilroy and County. 5. Amendment of Pleadings: The parties do not currently anticipate amendments to the pleadings. //
J o in t Further Case Management C o n fe r e n c e Statement

3

C 0 8 -0 5 6 4 2 JW

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
M IG U E L M Á R Q U E Z A c tin g C o u n ty C o u n s e l C o u n ty o f S a n ta C la r a S a n Jo s e , C a l i fo r n i a

6.

Evidence preservation: Defendants have collected and preserved all documented and electronic evidence available

to them. A significant amount of evidence was prepared by the prosecution and criminal defense teams in connection with the criminal jury trial. The civil Defendants in this matter do not have equal access to those materials, since the District Attorney's Office cannot release those materials to the civil Defendants, since they are separate and distinct legal persons and entities. Defendants hope to arrange production of all pertinent materials ­ still photographs obtained from a videotape and blown up for jury publication, witness declarations, and various jury trial exhibits ­ with Plaintiffs' attorneys, who represented Plaintiff Geraldine Maldonado in the criminal jury trial. 7. Disclosures: All parties have prepared and served Initial Disclosures within the time parameters set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). 8. Discovery: The parties agree that each individual or entity party is permitted 25 specially prepared interrogatories, 25 requests for admissions, an unlimited number of requests for production of documents and things, but those requests must be narrowly tailored, and 7 fact witness depositions, each of which shall be limited to no more than seven hours in duration on one day. If, after completing 7 depositions, a party believes (s)he requires additional depositions, then (s)he may apply to the court for leave to take additional depositions. 9. Relief Sought: Plaintiffs seek a judgment for damages in their favor. The City of Gilroy, the County of Santa Clara, and their affiliated co-defendants seek judgment in their favor. 10. Settlement and ADR: All parties are amenable to Early Neutral Evaluation. Plaintiffs are also amenable to mediation before a private mediator. //
J o in t Further Case Management C o n fe r e n c e Statement

4

C 0 8 -0 5 6 4 2 JW

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
M IG U E L M Á R Q U E Z A c tin g C o u n ty C o u n s e l C o u n ty o f S a n ta C la r a S a n Jo s e , C a l i fo r n i a

11.

Scheduling: The appellate court recently appointed Ron Rayes as new counsel to represent Plaintiff in

her criminal appeal. Mr. Rayes filed Ms. Maldonado's opening brief last month. The People have requested additional time to file their response brief. It is the understanding of the parties that the criminal appeal will be fully briefed by the end of January 2010, that oral argument will likely take place in March or April 2010, and that a final decision will be issued by the end of May 2010. The parties to this civil action respectfully request that the current stay remain in place and that a further case management conference be scheduled in early June 2010. 12. Trial: The parties all request a jury and anticipate that trial will last five to eight days. 13. Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons: The City of Gilroy, the County of Santa Clara, and their affiliated co-defendants are exempt from the Local Rule 3-16 disclosure requirements. All other parties have filed the "Certification of Interested Entities or Persons" required by Civil Local Rule 3-16. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, Plaintiffs assert that as of the date of this Joint Initial Case Management Conference Statement, other than the named parties, there is no such interest to report. // // // // // // // // // //
J o in t Further Case Management C o n fe r e n c e Statement

5

C 0 8 -0 5 6 4 2 JW

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures indicated by a "conformed" signature (/S/) within this e-filed document. MIGUEL MÁRQUEZ Acting County Counsel Dated: December 4, 2009 By: /S/ MARK F. BERNAL Deputy County Counsel Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, DEPUTY R. URENA, DEPUTY S. LOPEZ, and DEPUTY J. TRAN

BURTON, SCHMAL & DiBENEDETTO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
M IG U E L M Á R Q U E Z A c tin g C o u n ty C o u n s e l C o u n ty o f S a n ta C la r a S a n Jo s e , C a l i fo r n i a

Dated: December 4, 2009

By:

/S/ TIMOTHY J. SCHMAL, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF GILROY, SERGEANT GALLACINAO, CORPORAL CALLAHAN, and POLICE CHIEF GREGG GIUSIANA

LIVINGSTON LAW FIRM

Dated: December 4, 2009

By:

/S/ CRAIG A. LIVINGSTON. ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiffs GERALDINE MALDONADO, PRISCILLA MALDONADO, and M.M., a minor, by and through Guardian Ad Litem, Miguel Maldonado

*** ORDER **** In light of the parties' representation, the Court finds good cause to continue the STAY presently imposed on the case to June 21, 2010. Accordingly, the December 14, 2009 Case Management Conference is continued to June 21, 2010 at 10 a.m. On or before June 11, 2010, the parties shall file a Joint Case Management Conference Statement. The Statement shall include, among other things, an update on Plaintiff's underlying criminal appeal, and if the stay should pbe lifted, a good faith discovery plan with a proposed date for the close of all discovery. 227485.w d Dated: December 8, 2009
J o in t Further Case Management C o n fe r e n c e Statement

___________________________ JAMES WARE 6 United States District Judge

C 0 8 -0 5 6 4 2 JW