Browett v. City of Reno

Filing 14

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER re 8 Case Management Report. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 5/16/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4

JACK D. CAMPBELL
Attorney at Law
Nevada State Bar #4938
4790 Caughlin Parkway, #420
Reno, NV 89519
[phone]
Attorney for Plaintiff

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8

MICHAEL S. BROWETT
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12
13

CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-00181-RCJ-WGC

vs.
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

THE CITY OF RENO, a municipality
organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Nevada, and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive,

14

Defendants.

15
/

16

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT

17

Plaintiff Michael S. BROWETT and Defendant CITY OF RENO, by and through their

18
19

undersigned counsel, hereby submit their first Joint Case Management Report in accordance with

20

this Court’s Minute Order filed on April 26, 2016 (Doc. # 7).

21

1.

Nature of the case:

22

This case involves allegations of interference with Plaintiff’s FMLA rights established by

23

29 C.F.R. §825.100, et seq. BROWETT alleges that CITY OF RENO improperly interjected

24

elements of his FMLA leave into the promotion interview process and then used his FMLA leave

25

as a negative factor in denying his promotion to Lieutenant with the Reno Police Department in

26

violation of 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq.

27

///

28

///

Jack D Campbell
Attorney at Law
4790 Caughlin
Parkway, #420
Reno, NV 89519

-1-

1

2.

Factual and legal disputes:

CITY OF RENO generally denies all material allegations and claims that it had
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

legitimate business reasons for denying BROWETT the promotion.
3.

Jurisdiction:

Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 because this matter
involves a federal question. This matter is brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §2617 of The Family
Leave Act 29 U.S.C. §§2601-2654. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over any state
law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).
It is the CITY OF RENO’s position that the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) does not
provide a private federal cause of action for an alleged discriminatory violation of an employer’s
benefit plan. Plaintiff cannot recover damages under FMLA, 29 C.F.R. §825.700, for alleged
discrimination in the administration of the City of Reno’s paid leave policy because a private
contractual agreement does not provide federal courts with jurisdiction.
It is CITY OF RENO’s further position that Plaintiff’s claim for interference damages in
paragraph 42 of the complaint is not justiciable or ripe for adjudication and the court is without
jurisdiction to hear the claim.

16
4.
17

Additional Parties:

None identified at this time.

18
5.

Statement of expected additional parties or amended pleadings:

19
Neither Party currently expects to add any additional party or to file an amended
20
pleading.
21
6.

Pending Motions:

22
None.
23
7.

Contemplated Motions:

24
CITY OF RENO reserves the right to file a Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 56 motion for summary
25
judgment upon the conclusion of discovery.
26
8.

Related Cases:

27
None.
28
Jack D Campbell
Attorney at Law
4790 Caughlin
Parkway, #420
Reno, NV 89519

-2-

1

9.

Discovery:
a.

2
3
4
5

Extent, nature and location of discovery:

All discovery is currently anticipated to be accomplished locally. It is currently believed
that all relevant documents are maintained and in the possession of CITY OF RENO, and all
anticipated witnesses are either current or former employees of CITY OF RENO. Plaintiff’s
expert consultants and witnesses are all residents of this jurisdiction.

6
b.

Suggested revisions to discovery limitations:

c.

7

Deposition time limits:

None.

8
9
10

The Parties do not currently anticipate the need for any limits on the time to depose any
witness and do not expect any deposition to exceed the current prescription of 7 hours.

11
10.
12

Electronically stored information:

The majority of documents identified for discovery are believed to be electronically
13
stored by CITY OF RENO, and the Parties do not currently anticipate any difficulties in
14
identifying and producing those records.
15
11.

Issues of privilege or work product:

16
The Parties are currently negotiating the elements of a Stipulated Protective Order that
17

will address anticipated issues of privilege and work product involved with the anticipated

18
discovery in this matter. Once agreed upon, the Stipulated Protective Order will be submitted to
19
the Court for consideration.
20
12.

Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order:

21
Concurrent with this Case Management Report, the Parties have submitted a Stipulated
22

Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order for the Court’s approval.

23
13.

Proposed Scheduling Order Dates:

24
a.

Discovery Cutoff:

October 19, 2016

b.

Deadline to Amend Pleadings and Add Parties: July 21, 2016

c.

Expert Disclosures:

August 19, 2016

Rebuttal Expert Disclosures:

September 19, 2016

25
26
27
28
Jack D Campbell
Attorney at Law
4790 Caughlin
Parkway, #420
Reno, NV 89519

-3-

1

d.

Deadline for Dispositive Motions:

November 18, 2016

6.

Filing of Pretrial Order:

December 19, 2016

2
THE DEADLINES SUBMITTED HEREIN ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH LR 26-1(e).
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

14.

Jury trial requested:

Yes. But it is the CITY OF RENO’s position that Plaintiff’s prayer for equitable relief
should not be determined by a jury.
15.

Estimated length of trial:

Four Days.
16.

Settlement:

The Parties’ undersigned counsel hereby certify that they met at the Rule 26(f)
Conference, discussed the possibility of settlement, and agreed that settlement is currently not
possible.

13

17.

Other matters to aid the Court:

14

None at this time.

15
16

DATED this

9th

day of May, 2016.

17
18
19
20
21
22

By: /s/ William E Cooper
WILLIAM E. COOPER
Deputy City Attorney
Nevada State Bar # 2213
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, Nevada 89509
Attorney for Defendant

By: /s/ Jack D Campbell
JACK D. CAMPBELL
Attorney at Law
Nevada State Bar #4938
4790 Caughlin Parkway, #420
Reno, Nevada 89519
Attorney for Plaintiff

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED

25
26

Dated this 16th day of May, 2016.

________________________________
William G. Cobb
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28
Jack D Campbell
Attorney at Law
4790 Caughlin
Parkway, #420
Reno, NV 89519

-4-

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

Pursuant to FRCP 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of Jack D Campbell,

3

Attorney at Law, and that on this date, I am serving the foregoing document(s) on the

4

party(s) set forth below by:
Placing an original or true copy thereof in a sealed envelope placed for collection
and mailing in the United States Mail, at Reno, Nevada, postage prepaid,
following ordinary business practices.

5
6

Personal delivery.

7
8
9

X

CM/ECF electronic filing service
Facsimile (FAX).

10
11
12

Federal Express or other overnight delivery.
Reno/Carson Messenger Service.

13
14
15
16

addressed as follows:
CITY OF RENO
1 E. 1st Street, 15th Floor
Reno, NV 89501

17
18

DATED this __9th__ day of March, 2016.

19
20
21

/s/ Jack D Campbell
JACK D CAMPBELL
Jack D Campbell, Attorney at Law

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jack D Campbell
Attorney at Law
4790 Caughlin
Parkway, #420
Reno, NV 89519

-5-