Document 25
Filed 07/03/2008
Page 1 of 6
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
LITTLER MENDELSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 50 West San Fernando Stieel 15th Floof San Jose CA 95113.2303 408 998.4150
BRIAN T. McMILLAN, Bar No. 111890 LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation 50 West San Fernando Street 15th Floor San Jose, CA 95113.2303 Telephone: 408.998.4150 Attorneys for Defendant SANDPLAY THERAPISTS OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JANE R. EVANS, Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. C 08-01066 SBA DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER Date: July 10,2008 Time: 3:30 p.m. Place: Telephone conference Judge: Hon. Judge Armstrong
SANDPLAY THERAPISTS OF AMERICA, Defendant.
Defendant Sandplay Therapists of America submits this Case Management Statement and respectfully requests the Court to adopt it as the Case Management Order in this case. Defendant was unable to reach an agreement with pro se plaintiff Jane Rocio Evans regarding Defendant's proposed Case Management Statement, after attempts to contact her by e-mail and telephone and after having emailed to her Defendant's proposed statement on July 2, 2008. 1. Jurisdiction and Service: Defendant states that this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims because she has alleged claims arising under federal law, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e ("Title VII"). At this time, Defendant is not aware of any issue regarding personal jurisdiction or venue, or any party that remains to be served. 2. Facts: 1. Plaintiff s Statement:
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. C 08-01066 SBA FIRMWIDE:85733968.1 060273.1001
Case 4:08-cv-01066-SBA
Document 25
Filed 07/03/2008
Page 2 of 6
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
LITTLER MENDELSON
50 Wesl San Fernando Slreel 15lh Floor San Jose, CA 95113.2303 408.998 4150
2.
Defendant's Statement:
Plaintiff Jane Rocio Evans claims that she was discriminated against based on her race (Hispanic) in violation of Title VII. She claims discriminatory treatment starting in May/June 2002 to February 22, 2008. discriminated against by it. Defendant Sandplay Therapists of America ("Sandplay") is a non-profit organization established to train, support, and promote professional development in sandplay. Sandplay invites individuals interested in the goals and mission of the organization to become members of the organization. There are different levels of membership. Plaintiff Jane R. Evans was an associate member of Sandplay. Sandplay did not employ Ms. Evans at any time. Sandplay has no employees, and at all times relevant to Plaintiff Jane Rocio Evans' lawsuit, it never held an employer-employee relationship with any individual. To the extent Sandplay needs bookkeeping or other services, it contracts with individuals to provide those services. For example, Sandplay has contracted with one individual to provide office administrative assistance and bookkeeping. She is an independent Defendant denies that it employed Plaintiff and that she was
contractor. Sandplay uses no more than 3 to 5 independent contractors every year. Ms. Evans was neither an employee nor an independent contractor of Sandplay. Sandplay is aware that Plaintiff had disputes with some of Sandplay's members. However, those members are not employees or independent contractors of Sandplay. 3. Legal Issues: At this time, Defendant believes the following legal issues exist: 1. Whether Plaintiff can state a viable cause of action under Title VII when she
was never employed by Sandplay. 2. 3. 4. Whether Defendant is an "employer" as defined under Title VII. Whether Plaintiff s claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
Motions: In early July 2008, Defendant will file a motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative, a motion for summary judgment, as its responsive pleading to Plaintiffs Complaint. 5. Amendment of Pleadings: Defendant does not expect any amendments.
2. CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
CASE NO. C 08-01066 SB A FIRMWIDE:85733968.1 060273.1001
Case 4:08-cv-01066-SBA
Document 25
Filed 07/03/2008
Page 3 of 6
1
2
3
4
6.
Evidence Preservation: Defendant has taken steps to preserve evidence relevant to
the issues reasonably evident in this action. 7. Disclosures: Defendant proposes that the parties complete initial disclosures and
exchange copies of relevant documents on September 15, 2008. 8. Discovery: Discovery has not yet commenced in this action, and Defendant requests
5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27
that discovery be stayed until after the Court's ruling on its upcoming motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. Defendant believes that staying discovery will save the parties time, resources and money, in the event the matter is resolved on its motion. Defendant does not agree to any limitations or modifications of the discovery rules. 9. 10. 11. 12. Class Actions: Not applicable. Related Cases: None. Relief: Defendant contends that Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Settlement and ADR: The parties have not engaged in any settlement or ADR efforts
to date. Defendant contends that it should be afforded its right to have its motion to dismiss heard and to conduct discovery to evaluate Plaintiffs claims before any ADR is ordered. Defendant will consider whether any ADR process is appropriate after it has taken initial discovery, including Plaintiffs deposition. 13. Consent to Magistrate Judge For All Purposes: Defendant will not consent to a
magistrate judge to conduct all further proceedings. 14. Other References: Defendant does not believe this is suitable for reference to binding
arbitration, a special master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. 15. Narrowing of Issues: Defendant will meet and confer with Plaintiff prior to trial to
determine whether they are able to stipulate to any facts. 16. Expedited Schedule: At this point, Defendant does not believe this case is
appropriate for handling on an expedited basis. 17. Scheduling: Defendant requests that discovery be stayed until after the Court's ruling
on Defendant's upcoming motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. Defendant believes that staying discovery will save the parties time, resources and money, in the
CASE NO. C 08-01066 SBA FIRMWIDE:85733968.1 060273.1001 3. CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
28
LITTLER MENDELSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
15th Flooi San Jose. CA 95113 2303 408.996 4150
Case 4:08-cv-01066-SBA
Document 25
Filed 07/03/2008
Page 4 of 6
1
event the matter is resolved on its motion. Defendant also proposes the following schedule for this case: January 30, 2009: February 27, 2009: March 28, 2009: June 6, 2009: June 20, 2009: 18. Last day for non-expert discovery Last day for designation of experts Last day to hear dispositive motions Pretrial Conference Trial date.
2 3 4
5
6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22
Trial: Plaintiff has requested a jury trial. Defendant expects that the length of trial
will be three to four full court days. 19. Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons: Defendant will file a
Certificate of Interested Entities shortly. 20. Other Matters: At this time, Defendant is not aware of any other matters that may
facilitate the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of this matter. Dated: July 3, 2008 Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN T. MCMILLAN LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation Attorneys for Defendant SANDPLAY THERAPISTS OF AMERICA
23 24
25
26
27
28
LITTLER MENDELSON
15th Floor San Jose, CA 95113.2303 406.998.4150
CASE NO. C 08-01066 SB A FIRMWIDE:85733968.1 060273.1001
4.
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case 4:08-cv-01066-SBA
Document 25
Filed 07/03/2008
Page 5 of 6
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Dated:
[PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER The Case Management Statement is hereby adopted by this Court as the Case Management Order for the case, and the parties are ordered to comply with this order. In addition, the Court orders:
_, 2008 THE HONORABLE SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25
26 27 28
LITTLER MENDELSON
50 Wesi San Feinando Street 15th Floof San Jose, CA 95113.2303 408.998.4150
CASE NO. C 08-01066 SBA FIRMWIDE:85733968.1 060273.1001
5.
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Case 4:08-cv-01066-SBA
Document 25
Filed 07/03/2008
Page 6 of 6
1
2
3
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL I am employed in Santa Clara County, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is 50 West San Fernando Street, 15th Floor, San Jose, California 95113.2303. I am readily familiar with this firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. On July 3, 2008, I placed with this firm at the above address for deposit with the United States Postal Service a true and correct copy of the within document(s): DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER in a sealed envelope, postage fully paid, addressed as follows:
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
LITTLER MENDELSON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 50 West San Fernando Street 1Slh Flooi San Jose. CA 95113 2303 408 996 4150
Jane Rocio Evans, MFT P. O. Box 424886 San Francisco, CA 94142 Following ordinary business practices, the envelope was sealed and placed for collection and mailing on this date, and would, in the ordinary course of business, be deposited with the United States Postal Service on this date. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on July 3, 2008, at San Jose, California.
h L.'--x^i
/ /->
/
eigh Ann Taaffe //
CASE NO. C 08-01066 SBA FIRMWIDE:85733968.1 060273.1001
6.
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms