Free Status Report - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-01364-JLK

Document 59

Filed 01/02/2007

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 99-cv-2077-JLK MARK E. SHEPHERD, SR., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, a corporation, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 03-cv-1364-JLK SCOT HOLLONBECK, JOSE ANTONIO INIGUEZ, JACOB WALTER JUNG HO HEILVEIL, and VIE SPORTS MARKETING, INC., a Georgia corporation, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, a federally-chartered corporation, and U.S. PARALYMPICS, INC., f/k/a UNITED STATES PARALYMPIC CORPORATION, a Colorado non-profit corporation, Defendants. JOINT STATUS REPORT

The parties, through their respective counsel, having met and conferred, hereby submit this Joint Status Report in connection with the Court's November 30, 2006 Order setting the January 4, 2007 status conference:
\\\CS - 063234/000507 - 86764 v5

Case 1:03-cv-01364-JLK

Document 59

Filed 01/02/2007

Page 2 of 5

1.

Plaintiff Mark E. Shepherd, Sr. (in the Shepherd matter) and Plaintiffs Scot

Hollonbeck, Jose Antonio Iniguez and Jacob Walter Jung Ho Heilveil (in the Hollonbeck matter) (collectively the "Athlete Plaintiffs") brought claims against Defendant United States Olympic Committee ("USOC")1 under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 - 12189, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (the "Athlete Claims"). This Court recently granted Defendant USOC's motion for summary judgment (in the Shepherd matter) and its motion to dismiss (in the Hollonbeck matter) as to the Athlete Claims. Mem. Op. and Order Granting Defs.' Dispositive Mots. re Athlete Claims (filed Nov. 16, 2006) ("November 16 Order"). 2. In the Shepherd case, Mr. Shepherd also brought claims for violation of Title I of

the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 - 12117, for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and for willful breach of employment contract or, in the alternative, promissory estoppel (the "Employment Claims"). Discovery is complete with respect to these claims (though the parties anticipate supplementing some of their earlier responses due to passage of time) and this Court has denied the USOC's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. See Courtroom Minutes (Doc. 36) dated Sept. 21, 2005, at 2. Following the November 16 Order, these are the only claims pending in the Shepherd matter. 3. In the Hollonbeck case, this Court's November 16 Order disposed of all of the

claims of Plaintiffs Hollonbeck, Iniguez, and Heilveil. Plaintiff Vie Sports Marketing, Inc. ("Vie")

Plaintiffs in the Hollonbeck matter also named U.S. Paralympics, a division of the USOC. That entity and the USOC will collectively be referred to as "Defendant" or "the USOC."
\\\CS - 063234/000507 - 86764 v5

1

-2-

Case 1:03-cv-01364-JLK

Document 59

Filed 01/02/2007

Page 3 of 5

asserted claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act against the USOC, as well as claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. 4. Plaintiffs Shepherd, Hollonbeck, Iniguez, and Heilveil request that this Court direct

entry of a final judgment pursuant to F.R.C.P. 54(b) as to the Athlete Claims. Defendant does not oppose such request. 5. In the Hollonbeck matter, Vie's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims were based on

two distinct theories of discrimination. The first theory is that Vie was injured by the discrimination alleged in the Athlete Claims, namely the USOC's alleged discrimination against Paralympic athletes. The parties agree that the Court's November 16 Order effectively disposes of Vie's first theory of liability under Title III of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The parties agree that the Court should enter an Order dismissing such claims (without any prejudice to Vie to appeal such Order) based on the Court's rulings in its November 16 Order. 6. As to Vie's second theory of liability under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act,

Vie states that it abandons the theory and that it does not and will not pursue claims against the USOC under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act based on any theory of liability other than its first theory, articulated above in paragraph 5. In that regard, the parties have agreed to enter into the stipulation attached hereto as EXHIBIT 1. 7. With the streamlining of Vie's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims to a single

theory of liability and the parties' agreement that the Court should order a dismissal of such claims (without any prejudice to Vie to appeal such order) pursuant to the November 16 Order, Plaintiff Vie requests that this Court direct entry of a final judgment pursuant to F.R.C.P. 54(b) as to Vie's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. Defendant does not oppose such request.

\\\CS - 063234/000507 - 86764 v5

-3-

Case 1:03-cv-01364-JLK

Document 59

Filed 01/02/2007

Page 4 of 5

8.

The parties agree and request that this Court retain supplemental jurisdiction of

Vie's claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. Based on Paragraphs 5 through 7 above, these claims would be the only claims pending in the Hollonbeck matter. The parties agree that Defendant shall have up to and including February 2, 2007 to file its response to the Amended Complaint. 9. With respect to Vie's claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, the

parties have agreed to approximately a five and one-half month stay so that they may schedule and participate in mediation. The parties have also agreed that each is entitled to conduct limited written discovery (no more than 20 requests for production and no more than 10 interrogatories) to be completed at least 30 days prior to the mediation. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that this Court set a scheduling conference in the Hollonbeck matter on a date convenient to the Court and parties that is no earlier than June 18, 2007. 10. With respect to the Employment Claims, the parties have agreed to participate in a

mediation of Shepherd's claims, and have agreed to retain the services of Joe Epstein, Conflict Resolution Services, Inc. The parties are presently exploring possible dates for such mediation, but due to the schedules of counsel, including conflicting trials and other legal responsibilities, the mediation will likely not occur until late February or early March. Accordingly, the parties request that the Employment Claims be held in abeyance during the mediation process. The parties will submit a Supplemental Status Report Regarding Employment Claims within ten (10) days after the completion of the mediation, but in no event later than April 15, advising the Court of the status of the claims.

\\\CS - 063234/000507 - 86764 v5

-4-

Case 1:03-cv-01364-JLK

Document 59

Filed 01/02/2007

Page 5 of 5

Dated: January 2, 2007 Respectfully submitted, FOX & ROBERTSON, P.C. HOGAN & HARTSON, LLP

/s Amy Farr Robertson Amy Farr Robertson Timothy P. Fox Fox & Robertson, P.C. 910 - 16th Street, Suite 610 Denver, CO 80202 303.595.9700 (voice) 303.595.9705 (fax) [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Darold Killmer Mari Newman Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP 1543 Champa Street, Suite 400 The Odd Fellows Hall Denver, CO 80202 303.571.1000 (voice) 303.571.1101 (fax) [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Shepherd Kevin W. Williams Legal Program Director Colorado Cross Disability Coalition 655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, CO 80203 303.839.1775 (voice) 303.839.1782 (fax) [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Hollonbeck, Heilveil and Iniguez

/s Jeffrey S. George John W. Cook Jeffrey S. George Anne H. Turner Hogan & Hartson L.L.P. 2 N Cascade Ave., Suite 1300 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 719.448.5900 (voice) 719.448.5922 (fax) [email protected]

Raymond M. Deeny N. Dawn Webber Sherman & Howard L.L.C. 90 S Cascade Ave. Suite 1500 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 719.475.2440 (voice) 719.635.4576 (fax) [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants

\\\CS - 063234/000507 - 86764 v5

-5-