Free Joint Case Management Statement - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-05713-MHP

Document 14

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 1 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Michael C. Cohen, Esq., Bar No. 65487 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. COHEN 1814 Franklin Street, Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 832-6436 Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRISTOBAL ZAMUDIO, 14 15 16 17 CITY OF OAKLAND, 18 19 20 21 Defendants. __________________________/ vs. Plaintiff,

No.

C 07-05713 MHP

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Date: April 7, 2008 Time: 4:00 p.m. Ctrm: 15, Floor 18 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, California

The Parties Jointly submit this case management statement in 22 anticipation of their initial case management conference in this 23 case. Defense counsel notes that the attorney handling this case 24 left the city Attorney's office on March 5, 2008, and the case 25 has been reassigned to new counsel within the last last three 26 weeks. 27 28
Joint Case Management Statement -1-

Case 3:07-cv-05713-MHP

Document 14

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 2 of 9

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 1. Jurisdiction and Service:

This case was timely removed from Alameda County Superior Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). This court has jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. The complaint alleges claims under Title VII, the The Court has supplemental

Americans with Disabilities Act.

jurisdiction over any state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Plaintiff filed his complaint against the City of Oakland on December 15, 2006, in Alameda County Superior Court, alleging employment discrimination in violation of state laws prohibiting employment discrimination. On August 13, 2007, plaintiff filed

another complaint against the City of Oakland, in Alameda County Superior Court, alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended. Court ordered the two cases consolidated. transfer the case to federal court. Defendant, City of Oakland was served with plaintiff's second complaint on October 22, 2007. 2. Facts: The Superior

Defendant moved to

This employment dispute arises out of the following facts: Facts provided by Plaintiff: Plaintiff, is a Mexican American man. for the City of Oakland in 1991. related injury. January 2005. He started working

Plaintiff sustained a work

He was off work for a while and returned in Defendant laid plaintiff off work on or about May
-2-

Joint Case Management Statement

Case 3:07-cv-05713-MHP

Document 14

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 3 of 9

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

27, 2005, because of plaintiff's perceived physical disability. On or about November 27, 2005, defendant reinstated plaintiff to his job. again. In February 2006, defendant laid plaintiff off work After defendant laid plaintiff off work, plaintiff

provided defendant with medical documentation of his ability to perform the essential duties of his job, with or without a reasonable accommodation. On or about January 11, 2007,

plaintiff's treating doctor sent defendant another letter stating that plaintiff was physically able to return to his regular job and perform his job duties. Defendant continues to refuse to

allow plaintiff to return to work. Plaintiff contends that defendant discriminated against him, harassed him because of his national origin/ancestry, his disability, perceived disability and or retaliated against him for filing a workers' compensation claim. Facts provided by Defendant: Plaintiff suffered a work-related injury. On September 28, On

2004, he had a 2nd surgery performed on his left knee. November 17, 2004, plaintiff submitted a release with a

restriction of no lifting over 50 lbs., effective January 2, 2005. On January 4, 2005, plaintiff returned to work and was

placed in the Workers' Compensation Transitions Work Program (TWP) which allowed him to work in a transitional assignment while recovering from his injury, for a period not to exceed 90 days. Plaintiff's TWP assignment ended on May 27, 2005. A Job

Analysis for the position of Gardener Crew Leader was completed by an outside consultant on June 15, 2005.
Joint Case Management Statement -3-

On October 31, 2005,

Case 3:07-cv-05713-MHP

Document 14

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 4 of 9

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

plaintiff was returned to full duty with a permanent restriction of no lifting over 50 lbs. On February 3, 2006, plaintiff was sent to the City Physician due to severe pain while at work and he was sent home. Given plaintiff's worsened condition, he was given new restrictions that rendered him unable to perform duties of a Gardener Crew Leader. He was once again accommodated in a

temporary work assignment on June 26, 2006. Plaintiff, however, was unable to perform the essential functions of his position (with or without accommodation). Beginning in May 2005 or earlier, the City's Equal Opportunities Programs Division (EOPD) became involved in plaintiff's case. Plaintiff engaged in a long term interactive

process and a series of communications with EOPD staff, who assisted plaintiff with searching for solutions to his inability to perform the essential functions of his usual job and assisted in coordinating a citywide search for an alternative position for plaintiff. No alternative position was available to plaintiff

and he was eventually separated from employment.

Defendant asserts that it did provide plaintiff with reasonable accommodation when it was possible to do so, and that it provided an interactive process as well as assistance and a citywide job search. Allegations such discrimination occurred and that it was on the basis of national origin, disability or perceived disability, and that there was retaliation, are not supported by the facts.
Joint Case Management Statement -4-

Case 3:07-cv-05713-MHP

Document 14

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 5 of 9

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 3. The Principal Issues Include: a. Whether plaintiff is a disabled employee; b. Whether defendant perceived plaintiff as being disabled; c. Whether defendant reasonably accommodated plaintiff's disability and or perceived disability; d. Whether defendant discriminated/harassed plaintiff because of plaintiff's national origin/ancestry; e. Whether defendant retaliated against plaintiff because of plaintiff's disability and or perceived disability; f. Whether defendant retaliated against plaintiff because

plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim; 4. Legal Issues:

The parties are not aware of the existence of any legal issues. 5. Motions:

Defendant may file a motion for partial or complete summary judgment. 6. Amendment of Pleadings:

The parties do not anticipate amending the pleadings. 7. Evidence Preservation:

Plaintiff is not aware of any special efforts that need to be taken with respect to evidence preservation. 8. Disclosures:

The Parties have served their initial disclosures in compliance with Rule 26 and the court's order. 9. Discovery:
-5-

Joint Case Management Statement

Case 3:07-cv-05713-MHP

Document 14

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 6 of 9

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

Plaintiff intends to conduct the following discovery: Plaintiff intends to depose the following persons: a. Oakland's PMK about the facts and reasons relied on by

Oakland when Oakland decided to lay plaintiff off from work on or about May 27, 2005, and not allowed to return to work until on or about November 2005. b. Oakland's PMK about the facts and reasons relied on by

Oakland when Oakland decided to reinstate plaintiff to his regular job as a gardener III on or about November 2005. c. Oakland's PMK about the facts and reasons relied on by

Oakland when Oakland decided to lay plaintiff off work on or about February 2006, and why Oakland continues to refuse to allow plaintiff to return to work on his job as a gardener III. d. Oakland's PMK about the facts and reasons relied on by

Oakland when Oakland decided not to allow plaintiff to work as a street painter when plaintiff requested to work as a street painter. e. Plaintiff needs to review all documents and records from

Oakland, relied on by Oakland when Oakland decided to lay plaintiff off from work on or about May 27, 2005. f. Plaintiff needs to review all documents and records from

Oakland, relied on by Oakland when Oakland decided to reinstate plaintiff to his job as gardener III, on or about November 2005. g. Plaintiff needs to review all documents and records from

Oakland, relied on by Oakland when Oakland decided not to allow plaintiff to return to his regular job as gardener III, after plaintiff's treating doctor released plaintiff to return to work
Joint Case Management Statement -6-

Case 3:07-cv-05713-MHP

Document 14

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 7 of 9

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

on January 4, 2007. h. Plaintiff needs to review all documents and records from

Oakland, relied on by Oakland when Oakland decided not to hire plaintiff to work as a street sweeper. I. 2008. No changes to the Rule 26(a) disclosures are necessary. Required disclosures will be made as agreed by the parties. Plaintiff intends to complete discovery by August 30,

Defendant intends to conduct the following discovery: a. Defendant will make a request for documents and will take plaintiff's deposition.

b.

Defendant will subpoena documents from the Workers' Compensation 3rd party administrator JT2 Integrated Resources, related to plaintiff's Workers Compensation claim(s).

c.

Defendant may take the deposition of the JT2 Integrated Resources Claims Administrator(s) who handled plaintiff's file.

d.

Defendant will subpoena documents from all of plaintiff's health care providers.

e.

Defendant will take the deposition of plaintiff's doctor(s) and health care providers.

In the State Court action, defendant disclosed all of its internal personnel files related to plaintiff, per the parties' stipulation for Protective Order and Order.
Joint Case Management Statement -7-

Case 3:07-cv-05713-MHP

Document 14

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 8 of 9

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

10.

Class Actions:

This is not a class action. 11. 12. Related Cases: Relief:

Plaintiff is seeking $2,000,000.00 general damages; $150,000.00, for lost wages; undetermined amount for future wage loss; $1,000,000.00 punitive damages, and $20,000.00, attorney fees. 13. PROPOSED DEADLINES:

The parties believe that discovery will be completed in September, 2008. Accordingly, Defendant will be able to file a dispositive motion in September or October 2008. 14. ADR:

The parties agree to participate in a settlement conference before a Magistrate judge. 15. TRIAL DATE:

This case will be ready for trial by December 2008 or January 2009. 16. TRIAL ESTIMATE:

Plaintiff estimates that the trial will last 7 to 10 days. 17. Narrowing of Issues:

The parties are not aware of any issues that can be narrowed 18. Expedited Schedule:

This case need not be handled on an expedited basis with streamlined procedures.
Joint Case Management Statement -8-

Case 3:07-cv-05713-MHP

Document 14

Filed 03/28/2008

Page 9 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

19.

Scheduling:

Designation of expert witnesses: October 2008 Discovery cutoff: September 2008 Hearing of dispositive motions: October 2008 for filing. Pretrial conference: November 2008 Trial: December 2008 or January 2009.

////// //////

20.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff timely demanded a jury trial. Dated: March 28, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. COHEN

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Joint Case Management Statement -9-

By:_______/s/___________________ MICHAEL C. COHEN, Attorney for Plaintiff

By: ______/s/_____________________ RACHEL WAGNER Attorney for Defendant