Haak v. Cedar Fair, LP et al

Filing 74

ORDER denying 70 Joint Motion for Clarification as moot; Vacating Order; and Setting Remaining Pretrial Dates. Order of July 12, 2010 67 is vacated. Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/7/2011 01:30 PM before Judge Anthony J. Battaglia. Proposed Final Pretrial Order due by 9/30/2011. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 08/24/11. (cge)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

E.H., by and through his guardian ad litem,
MELODY HAAK,

CASE NO. 07CV01974-AJB (POR)

12

ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION
FOR CLARIFICATION AS MOOT;
VACATING ORDER; AND SETTING
REMAINING PRETRIAL DATES

Plaintiff,
13

vs.

14
15

CEDAR FAIR, L.P., d/b/a KNOTT’S SOAK
CITY, USA; RAUL REHNBORG,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

[Doc. No. 70]

Plaintiff E.H., a minor, appears by and through his mother, Melody Haak, his guardian ad
litem in this Americans with Disabilities suit. During the pretrial conference, Honorable Larry A.
Burns, then presiding over this action, granted the parties leave to file additional motions for
summary judgment on legal questions in order to streamline the issues for trial.1 Thereafter, the
case was transferred to the under-signed, along with a joint motion to clarify the substance of the
summary judgment motions that can be filed. The Court has reviewed Judge Burn’s Order [Doc.
No. 67], the joint motion [Doc. No. 70], the declarations of counsel and the record, and for the
reasons set forth below, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

25
26
27
28

1

Judge Burns held the pretrial conference on July 12, 2010, which was not recorded. The
parties’ proposed pretrial order listed 62 disputed issues of fact and identified 24 questions of law.
Judge Burns criticized the parties’ proposed pretrial order as being too long in such a straightforward
case and encouraged the parties to file another round of summary judgment motions to streamline the
questions of law. Judge Burns scheduled dates for in limine motions and “follow-up motions for
summary judgment.” See Doc. No. 67.
-1-

07CV01974

1

1.

Judge Burn’s Order of July 12, 2010, [Doc. No. 67], is hereby VACATED as there

2

is no record for this Court to review to determine why Judge Burns ordered a

3

second round of summary judgment motions or what the scope of those motions

4

was to be. Given the absence of a record and the parties’ disagreement regarding

5

the scope of the proposed motions, the Court sees no way to proceed under the July

6

12, 2010 Order.

7

2.

8
9

July 12, 2010, is hereby DENIED AS MOOT.
3.

10
11

Counsel must comply with the Pre-trial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(3) on or before September 9, 2011.

4.

12
13

The parties’ joint motion, [Doc. No. 70], for clarification of Judge Burn’s Order of

This order replaces the requirements under CivLR 16.1(f)(6)(c). No Memoranda of
Law or Contentions of Fact are to be filed.

5.

The parties shall meet and confer on or before September 9, 2011 and prepare a

14

proposed pretrial order containing the following:

15

1.

16

the case and the claims and defenses.

17

2.

18

Counterclaim if applicable]. For each cause of action, the order shall succinctly list

19

the elements of the claim, damages and any defenses. A cause of action in the

20

Complaint [and/or Counterclaim] which is not listed shall be dismissed with

21

prejudice.

22

3(a).

23

at trial with a brief statement, not exceeding four sentences, of the substance of the

24

witnesses' testimony.

25

3(b).

26

to call at trial with a brief statement, not exceeding four sentences, of the substance

27

of the expert witnesses' testimony.

28

3(c).

A statement to be read to the jury, not in excess of one page, of the nature of

A list of the causes of action to be tried, referenced to the Complaint [and

A list, in alphabetical order, of each witness counsel actually expect to call

A list, in alphabetical order, of each expert witness counsel actually expect

A list, in alphabetical order, of additional witnesses, including experts,
-2-

07CV01974

1

counsel do not expect to call at this time but reserve the right to call at trial along

2

with a brief statement, not exceeding four sentences, of the substance of the

3

witnesses' testimony.

4

4(a).

5

one-sentence description of the exhibit.

6

4(b).

7

reserve the right to offer if necessary at trial with a one-sentence description of the

8

exhibit.

9

5.

A list of all exhibits that counsel actually expect to offer at trial with a

A list of all other exhibits that counsel do not expect to offer at this time but

A statement of all facts to which the parties stipulate. This statement shall

10

be on a separate page and will be read to and provided to the jury.

11

6.

12

by section, that will be offered at trial in lieu of live testimony.

A list of all deposition transcripts by page and line, or videotape depositions

13

The Court encourages the parties to consult with the assigned magistrate judge to work out

14

any problems in preparation of the proposed pretrial order. The court will entertain any

15

questions concerning the conduct of the trial at the pretrial conference.

16

6.

Objections to Pre-trial disclosures must be filed no later than September 23, 2011.

17

7.

The Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order as described above must be prepared,

18

served, and lodged on or before September 30, 2011.

19

8.

20

October 7, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. The briefing and hearing dates for motions in limine and the

21

trial date will be set at the pretrial conference.

22

9.

23

days of verdict in the case.

24

10.

25

cause.

26

11.

27

before notice of hearing is served.

28

12.

The final Pretrial Conference is scheduled on the calendar of Judge Battaglia on

A post trial settlement conference before a magistrate judge may be held within 30

The dates and times set forth herein will not be modified absent extreme good

Dates and times for hearings on motions should be approved by the Court's clerk

Briefs or memoranda in support of or in opposition to any pending motion must not
-3-

07CV01974

1

exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length without leave of a district judge. No reply

2

memorandum must exceed ten (10) pages without leave of a district judge. Briefs and

3

memoranda exceeding ten (10) pages in length must have a table of contents and a table of

4

authorities cited. The parties are expected to read and comply with all Civil Local Rules

5

and Chambers Rules.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

DATED: August 24, 2011

9
10

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia
U.S. District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

07CV01974