Holland et al v. The Related Companies, Inc. et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03220

ORDER GRANTING {{44}} Joint Case Management Statement, Rule 26(f) Conference Statement; AS MODIFIED AND VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Discovery due by 1/15/2016. Expert Witness List due by 2/15/2016. Motion Hearing set for 4/15/201 6 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Jeffrey S. White. Pretrial Conference set for 6/27/2016 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Jeffrey S. White. Jury Selection set for 8/1/2016 08:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Jeffrey S. White. Jury Trial set for 8/1/2016 08:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Jeffrey S. White. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 10/2/15.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

Case Case4:15-cv-03220-JSW 4:15-cv-03220-JSW Document Document44 45 Filed Filed10/01/15 10/02/15 Page1 Page 1ofof66 1 PAUL L. REIN, Esq. (SBN 43053) CELIA MCGUINNESS, Esq. (SBN 159420) 2 CATHERINE CABALO, Esq. (SBN 248198) LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. REIN 3 200 Lakeside Dr., Suite A Oakland, CA 94612 4 Telephone: 510/832-5001 Facsimile: 510/832-4787 5 reinlawoffice@aol.com 6 STEVEN L. DERBY, Esq. (SBN 148372) THE DERBY LAW FIRM P.C. 7 1255 Treat Blvd., Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 8 Telephone: 925/472-6640 Facsimile: 925/933-3964 9 derby@derbydisabilitylaw.com 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs PETER HOLLAND and KRISTEN HOLLAND 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 PETER HOLLAND and KRISTEN CASE NO. 15-cv-3220 JSC HOLLAND, Civil Rights 15 16 Plaintiffs, JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, RULE 26 (F) 17 v. CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER 18 THE RELATED COMPANIES, INC.; AS MODIFIED AND VACATING CASE THIRD AND MISSION ASSOCIATES, MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 19 LLC; DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 The parties to the above-entitled actions submit this JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 24 STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER pursuant to the Standing Order for All Judges of the 25 Northern District of California dated November 1, 2014, and Civil Local Rule 16-9. 26 1. Jurisdiction & Service 27 The complaint of Plaintiffs PETER HOLLAND ("Mr. Holland") and KRISTEN 28 HOLLAND ("Ms. Holland") alleges 4 causes of action, including violations of the federal Fair JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT, RULE 26 (F) STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER Case Case4:15-cv-03220-JSW 4:15-cv-03220-JSW Document Document44 45 Filed Filed10/01/15 10/02/15 Page2 Page 2ofof66 1 Housing Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act and 2 Civil Code Section 54.1 et seq. (sometimes called but not actually named "the Disabled Persons 3 Act). This Court has jurisdiction over claims brought under Federal Law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 4 §§ 1331 and 1343. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims brought under 5 California Law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. All Defendants have been served and have 6 answered the complaint. There is presently no intention to amend the complaint to add additional 7 causes of action or additional parties and Defendants do not intend to file any counter-claims or 8 cross-complaints. Therefore, the pleadings are settled. 9 2. Facts 10 The facts surrounding the incident giving rise to the complaint are in dispute. 11 Plaintiffs PETER HOLLAND and KRISTEN HOLLAND (collectively, "Plaintiffs") contend 12 that Defendants failed to reasonably accommodate Peter Holland's disability, that as a United 13 States combat veteran with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, his PTSD was being exacerbated 14 daily because of Defendants' failure to accommodate his housing needs. Specifically, despite 15 having knowledge of Mr. Holland's PTSD diagnosis, Defendants refused to relocate Mr. Holland 16 and his family while they undertook major construction on the floor directly beneath him using 17 jackhammers, nail guns and other loud machinery that "triggered" Mr. Holland's PTSD, putting 18 himself and his family (including wife Plaintiff Kristen Holland and toddler daughter) at 19 imminent risk to their health and stability as a result. Plaintiffs contend that this failure to 20 accommodate lasted from at least April 8, 2015 until an order from this court granting Plaintiffs' 21 motion for preliminary injunction on July 23, 2015 – a period of 107 days. 22 Defendants contend that they provided several reasonable accommodation options to the 23 Plaintiff in compliance with their duty to engage in the interactive process. Defendants contend 24 that Defendants have not been damaged and if any damages were in fact sustained, Defendants are 25 not liable for said damages. Defendants contend that any delay in reasonably accommodating Mr. 26 Holland was caused by Holland's rejection of numerous reasonable accommodations. 27 28 -2- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT, RULE 26 (F) STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER Case Case4:15-cv-03220-JSW 4:15-cv-03220-JSW Document Document44 45 Filed Filed10/01/15 10/02/15 Page3 Page 3ofof66 1 3. Legal Issues 2 At issue in the complaint are whether the Defendants failed to provide a 3 reasonable accommodation to their tenants, Plaintiffs herein, despite acknowledgment of Mr. 4 Holland's PTSD diagnosis and alleged disability-related need for relocation;whether such 5 relocation posed an undue financial or administrative burden on Defendants; whether 6 Defendants' actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, California's Unruh 7 Civil Rights Act and Disabled Person's Act; and whether Defendants were negligent and caused 8 any harm to the Plaintiffs. 9 4. Motions 10 Plaintiffs may bring a motion for partial summary judgment and/or clarification of 11 issues under FRCP Rule 56(f) based upon Defendants' pre-litigation admissions and the lack of 12 any evidence to support a finding of undue burden. 13 Defendants' may also file a motion for summary judgment based upon 14 Defendants' contention that provided a reasonable accommodation to Plaintiff. 15 5. Amendment of Pleadings 16 As indicated above, no party presently intends to amend its pleadings. 17 6. Evidence Preservation 18 The parties are familiar with the ESI Guidelines. The parties are taking 19 reasonable and proportionate steps to preserve evidence relevant to the issues at bar. The parties 20 do not presently anticipate any issues requiring assistance from the court. 21 7. Disclosures 22 The parties intend to exchange initial disclosures on October 2, 2015, concurrent 23 with the filing of this statement. To facilitate settlement, Plaintiffs have agreed to provide 24 defense counsel with a copy of their preliminary expert report from Dr. William Sastry, 25 psychiatric expert on or before October 19, 2015, as a settlement-privileged document. This 26 report will amend and supplement Plaintiffs' initial disclosure submitted on October 2, 2015. 27 28 -3- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT, RULE 26 (F) STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER Case Case4:15-cv-03220-JSW 4:15-cv-03220-JSW Document Document44 45 Filed Filed10/01/15 10/02/15 Page4 Page 4ofof66 1 8. Discovery 2 The parties have met and conferred pursuant to Rule 26(f) and have agreed on the 3 following discovery to occur by the date indicated: 4 Deposition of Deborah Lunn on or before December 31, 2015 5 Deposition of Peter Holland on or before December 31, 2015 6 Deposition of Kristen Holland on or before December 31, 2015 7 These will be depositions on all relevant topics and may last up to seven (7) hours each. They 8 will proceed in the order indicated in this statement unless otherwise stipulated in writing. 9 9. Class Actions 10 Not applicable. 11 10. Related Cases 12 Not applicable. 13 11. Relief 14 Plaintiffs have sought and received an order granting preliminary injunction from 15 this court, which order was entered on July 23, 2015. Defendants have appealed that decision to 16 the Ninth Circuit and that appeal is now pending. Plaintiffs seek statutory damages for each 17 violation of the Unruh Act ($4,000 per day of violation) and the "Disabled Persons Act ($1,000 18 per day of violation). Plaintiffs also seek up to three times the amount of actual damages 19 pursuant to California Civil Code Sections 52.1 and 54 as well as policy-based injunctive relief 20 and attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs. 21 Defendants seek dismissal of the complaint against them or alternatively 22 judgment that they have no legal liability to Plaintiffs for the matters alleged in this action. 23 12. Settlement and ADR 24 The parties have enlisted the assistance of Margaret Corrigan, Ninth Circuit Court 25 of Appeal, as mediator and plan to have at least one mediation session with Ms. Corrigan in the 26 next sixty (60) days. 27 13. Consent to Magistrate Judge For All Purposes 28 Defendants declined consent to a magistrate judge. -4- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT, RULE 26 (F) STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER Case Case4:15-cv-03220-JSW 4:15-cv-03220-JSW Document Document44 45 Filed Filed10/01/15 10/02/15 Page5 Page 5ofof66 1 14. Other References 2 Not applicable. 3 15. Narrowing of Issues 4 Because of the current factual disputes, the parties are not able to narrow the 5 issues at bar. Plaintiffs contemplate that a motion for summary adjudication or clarification under 6 FRCP Rule 56(f) may be necessary to narrow the issues for trial. 7 16. Expedited Trial Procedure 8 This case is not suitable for Expedited Trial Procedure. 9 17. Scheduling 10 After meeting and conferring, the parties propose the following deadlines be 11 imposed by the court: 12 Discovery Cut-off: January 15, 2016 13 Designation of Experts: February 15, 2016 14 Hearing of Dispositive Motions: April 15, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. 15 Pretrial Conference: June 15, 2016 June 27, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. Jury Selection and Trial August 1, 2016 at 8:00 a.m. 16 Trial: July 10, 2016 17 18. Trial 18 Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial. Expected length of trial is 4-5 trial days. 19 19. Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons 20 None. 21 20. Professional Conduct 22 Counsel have reviewed the Guidelines for Professional Conduct for the Northern 23 District of California. 24 21. Other 25 Because of the interlocutory appeal of the court's grant of Plaintiffs' Motion for 26 Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiffs' counsel have not sought an interim award of fees and costs as 27 would be their right under Civil Code Section 55 [see Barrios v. California Interscholastic 28 -5- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT, RULE 26 (F) STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER Case Case4:15-cv-03220-JSW 4:15-cv-03220-JSW Document Document44 45 Filed Filed10/01/15 10/02/15 Page6 Page 6ofof66 1 Federation 277 F3d. 1128 (9th Cir. 2002)] If the appeal results in affirmance of the trial court's 2 order, Plaintiffs' counsel may seek an interim fee award. 3 4 Dated: October 1, 2015 LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. REIN Attorneys for Plaintiffs PETER HOLLAND 5 and KRISTEN HOLLAND 6 By: /s/ 7 Celia McGuinness, Esq. 8 9 Dated: October 1, 2015 KIMBALL, TIREY & ST. JOHN LLP 10 Attorneys for Defendants THE RELATED 11 COMPANIES, INC. and THIRD AND MISSION ASSOCIATES, LLC 12 By: /s/ 13 Eli Gordon, Esq. 14 15 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 16 17 The above JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, RULE 26 (F) STATEMENT & 18 PROPOSED ORDER is approved as the Case Management Order for this case and all parties as modified above with regard to the pretrial and trial dates. 19 shall comply with its provisions. [In addition, the Court makes the further orders stated below:] 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. The case management conference scheduled for October 9, 2015 is VACATED. 21 Dated: October 2, 2015 22 23 24 25 HON. JEFFREY S. WHITE 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 27 28 -6- JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT, RULE 26 (F) STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER