Banks et al v. City of Mt. Juliet, Tennessee et al

Filing 86

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 9/1/2014. Dispositive Motions due by 3/16/2015. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 8/25/14. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(afs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
KITAKIAMMA BANKS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF MT. JULIET, TENNESSEE,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-0673
) JUDGE TRAUGER
)
) JURY DEMAND
)
)
)
)
)

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
A. JURSDICTION:

This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1343 and

Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983 and 3601.
B. BRIEF THEORIES OF THE PARTIES:
1) PLAINTIFFS: Plaintiffs Kitakiamma Banks, et al., bring this case for violation of Title 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983 for arrest without probable cause and excessive force. These plaintiffs claim the defendants
Matt Mang, Officer Short, Officer Toy and David Lee arrested them without probable cause and used
excessive force during a disturbance at the Willow Creek Apartments on June 9, 2011. These
plaintiffs, except for Nealous, as well as the remainder of the plaintiffs, all African Americans, further
bring this action pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, and 1982, as well as Title 42 §§ 3601, the Fair
Housing Act, based on the remaining defendants' unequal treatment of them in the conditions and use
of their rental property. Plaintiffs allege the defendants violated their right to equal protection of the
law and other substantive due process rights protected the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Plaintiffs allege that the City of Mt. Juliet and many of its officers acted in concert with the former
defendants Cheri Hass, Gonzales, Woodland Arms Apts, Ltd. and Concord Management, LTD to
deny them equal access to the common areas and treated them unfairly and unequally, because of their

race, over a period of time. As to the City, Chief Hambrick and Specialized Security Consultants,
we are alleging that they conspired to act in violation of the Plaintiffs’s 14th Amendment Due Process
rights by the actions set forth in the complaint. Plaintiffs are alleging specific instances of illegal
conduct on the part of the defendants and general violations of law applicable to all of the plaintiffs.

2) DEFENDANTS:
CITY OF MT. JULIET, TENNESSEE DEFENDANTS:
Defendants City of Mt. Juliet, Tennessee; Matt Mang, individually; Officer Short, individually;
Chief Hambrick, individually; Officer Toy, individually; and the unnamed City of Mt. Juliet Police
Officers, individually, deny that any of their actions or inactions related to the Plaintiffs and events
referenced in this litigation violated the Plaintiffs's rights. The Mt. Juliet Defendants dispute the
Plaintiffs's factual account of the events of June 9, 2013. Specifically, the Mt. Juliet Defendants
contend that their actions related to the arrests which are the subject, in part, of this litigation were
lawful, did not violate any of the arrestees's rights and did not involve the use of excessive force.
Further, the Mt. Juliet Defendants deny that they acted in concert with the former Woodland Arms
Defendants, either in whole or in part, in connection with the numerous Plaintiffs who have brought
this litigation claiming that their rights were also violated under Local, State and/or Federal Housing
Laws. The Mt. Juliet Defendants who are individually sued - Defendants Mang, Short and Toy maintain that they are entitled to qualified immunity. To the extent that other currently unnamed law
enforcement officers employed by the City of Mt. Juliet will be identified at a later point in time, these
Defendants anticipate that those to-be-identified officers will also rely upon the defense of qualified
immunity. To the extent that Plaintiffs assert a Monnell theory against Defendant City of Mt. Juliet,
the City denies that it had or has any policy, practice, pattern or custom of either acting toward or

-2-

dealing with the Plaintiffs, or allowing its City policy officers to do the same, in any manner which
would expose the City of Mt. Juliet to liability.
Finally, to the extent that Plaintiffs's housing discrimination or racial discrimination claims will
be found to be insufficient as a matter of law, the Mt. Juliet Defendants rely upon the defense of
failure to state a claim.
SPECIALIZED SECURITY CONSULTANTS, INC. DEFENDANT:
Defendant, Specialized Security Consultants is a private security firm and it is not a state
actor. Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted against this
Defendant. This Defendant may not be sued under any of the constitutional theories alleged by
Plaintiffs nor did it violate any of the statutes alleged by Plaintiffs.
Alternatively, This Defendant states that any actions taken by this Defendant were
constitutionally protected and/or justified and legally privileged.
In addition, Specialized Security Consultants did not cause any injury or harm to Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs suffered no injury or harm from this Defendant. Indeed, this Defendant was not even on
the property during most of the time period alleged in the Plaintiff’s amended pleadings. This
Defendant denies that it caused any damages to Plaintiffs. Each Plaintiff must specifically identify
what alleged conduct it claims was wrongful and attributable to this Defendant. To the extent that
Plaintiffs claim such injury or harm was caused by this Defendant, Defendant states that Plaintiffs’
own actions failed to mitigate their possible damages and/or served as provocative measures or
gestures. Defendant states that Plaintiffs are guilty of comparative fault, and Defendant pleads the
equitable defense encompassed by the doctrine of unclean hands as to Plaintiffs.
Since it is unclear exactly what conduct Plaintiffs are alleging against this Defendant,
Defendant pleads the benefit of any statute of limitations that bars any allegations by Plaintiffs. This
-3-

Defendant may not be held liable for the actions or omissions of any other alleged Defendant or party.
Specialized Security Consultants is entitled to separate consideration.
The Plaintiffs’ claims against this Defendant are and have been released, discharged and
relinquished by the settlement of their claims with the apartment defendants in this case whom
Plaintiffs now refer to as the “former defendants” in their amended Complaint. According to the
docket sheet, Plaintiffs have settled any claims with the alleged principal in this case, Willow Creek
Apartments and said discharge of the principal would discharge any claims against Defendant.
Anytime that this Defendant was on the property, it was present with the consent and pursuant to the
authority of Willow Creek Apartments. To the extent that said parties are alleged to have been
released, said release also discharges this Defendant. Pleading alternatively, Defendant pleads that
it is entitled to an offset and credit for any alleged damages due to settlement with the apartment
complex managers and owners.
Also pleading in the alternative, Defendant pleads the doctrine of comparative fault against
the Willow Creek Apartment defendants whom Plaintiffs have apparently now dismissed from the
lawsuit for money. Any actions of Defendant were authorized and/or ratified by the owners/managers
of Willow Creek Apartments, and to the extent that such actions are challenged, the owners/managers
of the apartment complex are chargeable with comparative fault.
To the extent that Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to punitive damages, said damages
would be unconscionable and not permitted under the circumstances of this case and would constitute
a constitutional penalty. To the extent that said damages are sought, Defendant requests a bifurcated
hearing for such damages.

-4-

No discovery has been conducted in this case. Defendant reserves the right to state such other
defenses as may be just, equitable and proper.

By reference, Defendant also incorporates all

defenses raised in its Answer and denies any allegations of wrongdoing by Plaintiffs’ in this case.
C. ISSUES RESOLVED: Jurisdiction and venue.
D. ISSUES STILL IN DISPUTE: Liability and damages.
E. INITIAL DISCLOSURES: The parties shall exchange initial disclosures pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) on or before October 1, 2014.
F. DISCOVERY: Discovery is not stayed during dispositive notions, unless ordered by the
court. Local Rule 9(a)(2) is expanded to allow 40 interrogatories, including subparts. No motions
concerning discovery are to be filed until after the parties have conferred in good faith and, unable
to resolve their differences, have scheduled and participated in a conference telephone call with
Judge Trauger.
The following states and deadlines for discovery are established:
(a) The deadline for propounding interrogatories and requests for production of
documents shall be September 15, 2014.
(b) The deadline for all parties to respond to interrogatories and requests for
production of documents shall be October 20, 2014.
(c) The deadline for the completion of all lay depositions shall be February 13,
2015.
(d) The deadline for disclosure of Plaintiff's experts shall be March 16, 2015.
(e) The deadline for disclosure of Defendants's experts shall be April 27, 2015.
(f) The deadline for the completion of Plaintiff's expert depositions shall be June 1,
2015.
-5-

(g) The deadline for the completion of Defendants's expert depositions shall be
July 3, 2015.
G. MOTIONS TO AMEND: The parties shall file all Motions to Amend on or before
9/1/14
_____________________.
H. JOINT MEDIATION REPORT: The parties shall submit a joint mediation report on
2/1/15
or before __________________.
I. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS: The parties shall file all dispositive motions on or before
March 16, 2015. Responses to dispositive motions shall be filed within twenty (20) days after
service. Optional replies shall be filed within ten (10) days after service of the response. Briefs shall
not exceed 20 pages. No motion for partial summary judgment shall be filed except upon leave of
court. Any party wishing to file such a motion shall first file a separate motion that gives the
justification for filing a partial summary judgment motion in terms of overall economy of time and
expense for the parties, counsel and the court.
J. ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY. The parties have reached agreements on how to conduct
electronic discovery. Thus, the default standard contained in Administrative Order No. 174 need not
apply to this case.
K. ESTIMATED TRIAL TIME: The parties expect the trial to last approximately 5-7 days.
It is so ORDERED.

________________________________
ALETA A. TRAUGER
U.S. District Judge

-6-

APPROVED FOR ENTRY:
/s/ Phillip L. Davidson
Phillip L. Davidson, BPR#006466
5115 Maryland Way, Suite 212
Brentwood, TN 37027
Ph: 615-386-7115
[e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiffs
/s/ Lawrence D. Wilson
Lawrence D. Wilson, Esq. BPR#004076
Attorney at Law
2400 Crestmoor Road, Suite 319
Nashville, TN 37215
Ph: 615-386-7145
[e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiffs
/s/ Robert M. Burns
Robert M. Burns, BPR#015383
Patrick J. Gray, BPR#030483
300 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37201
Ph: 615-244-3370
[e-mail]
Attorney for Defendants
City of Mt. Juliet, Matt Mang,
Officer Short, Officer Toy,
Chief Hambrick and the Unnamed
City of Mt. Juliet Police Officers
/s/ William S. Walton
William S. Walton, Esq. BPR#11177
BUTLER SNOW LLP
The Pinnacle at Symphony Place
150 Third Avenue South, Suite 1600
Nashville, TN 37201
Ph: 615-651-6717
Fx: 615-651-6701
[e-mail]
Attorney for Defendant Specialized Security
Consultants, Inc.

-7-