Free Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00224-PJH

Document 11

Filed 04/17/2008

Page 1 of 8

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

NEYHART, ANDERSON, FLYNN & GROSBOLL WILLIAM J. FLYNN - 95371 BENJAMIN K. LUNCH - 246015 [email protected] 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2080 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 677-9440 Facsimile: (415) 677-9445 Attorneys for Plaintiff KERRY WALLS HANSON BRIDGETT LLP PATRICK M. GLENN - 141604 [email protected] CHRISTINA LUINI - 238548 [email protected] 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-3200 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 Attorneys for Defendant CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

KERRY WALLS, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant.

No. C 08-0224-PJH JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT & RULE 26(f) REPORT____________________ Fed. R. Civ. P.26(f); L.R. 16-9

Date: Time: Judge: Room: Action Filed: Trial Date:

April 24, 2008 2:30 p.m. Phyllis J. Hamilton 3 January 14, 2008 Not set.

-1JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT (CASE NO. C 08-0224-PJH)
1444384.2

Case 3:08-cv-00224-PJH

Document 11

Filed 04/17/2008

Page 2 of 8

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

TO THE HONORABLE PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(f), Local Rule 16-9(a), and the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California, Re: Contents of Joint Case Management Statement, Plaintiff Kerry Walls ("Walls" or "Plaintiff") and Defendant Central Contra Costa Transit Authority ("CCCTA") jointly submit this Case Management Statement and request that the Court adopt it as the Case Management Order in this case. 1. Jurisdiction and Service Joint Statement: All parties have been served. At this time, the parties do not dispute that jurisdiction is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff asserts claims under the federal Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et. seq., and the Civil Rights Action of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant reserves the right to challenge the jurisdiction of this Court if, at any time, only Plaintiff's supplemental state law claims survive a motion for summary adjudication or some other dispositive motion. 2. Facts Plaintiff's Position: Mr. Walls was a public employee employed by Defendant. Defendant proposed to terminate Mr. Walls on or about January 20, 2006 from his position as a bus driver, and that in February or March 2006, Defendant changed the proposed termination to a "last chance agreement." Despite suffering from a serious health condition within the meaning of FMLA, Mr. Walls was required by Defendant to return to work before his doctors had cleared him to return to work. Mr. Walls did not return to work, and Defendant subsequently terminated him on or about March 3, 2006, without a pretermination or post-termination hearing. Defendant's Position: Defendant denies and disputes Plaintiff's claims. -2JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT (CASE NO. C 08-0224-PJH)
1444384.2

Case 3:08-cv-00224-PJH

Document 11

Filed 04/17/2008

Page 3 of 8

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

The principal factual issues that the parties dispute are: (1) whether there are sufficient facts to establish any claim upon which relief may be granted; (2) whether Plaintiff was employed by CCCTA at the time he allegedly requested an FMLA leave; (3) whether CCCTA terminated Mr. Walls employment for the legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory business reason that Mr. Walls failed to comply with terms of the "Last Chance Agreement," which he freely entered into with the guidance of his union representative. 3. Legal Issues Plaintiff's Position: Plaintiff contends that his termination constituted a violation of FMLA, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, California's prohibition on terminations in violation of public policy and denied Plaintiff due process pursuant to the California Constitution. Defendant's Position: Defendant contends that Plaintiff's claims will fail as a matter of law. The principle legal matters at issue are: (1) whether Plaintiff was an "eligible employee" within the meaning of FMLA at the time he allegedly requested time off of work; (2) whether Plaintiff suffered from a "serious health condition" for which he was entitled to FMLA leave at the time he allegedly requested it; (3) whether Plaintiff's agreement to the terms of the "Last Chance Agreement" executed on or about March 2, 2006 served as a waiver of any due process right to pre-termination notice and/or hearing; (4) whether the grievance procedure provided in the MOU between Plaintiff's union, Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1605 ("Local 1605") and CCCTA afforded Plaintiff sufficient procedural due process; (5) whether Plaintiff's state law wrongful termination claim is barred by the California Tort Claims Act, Government Code §§ 900, et. seq.; (6) to the extent that CCCTA's actions with regards to Plaintiff are found to have violated due process, whether reinstatement is an appropriate remedy.

-3JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT (CASE NO. C 08-0224-PJH)
1444384.2

Case 3:08-cv-00224-PJH

Document 11

Filed 04/17/2008

Page 4 of 8

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

4.

Motions To date, no motions have been filed. Plaintiff's Statement: Plaintiffs do not anticipate filing any dispositive motions at this time. Defendant's Statement: Defendant anticipates filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings and/or a

motion for summary judgment/ adjudication. 5. Amendment of Pleadings Joint Statement: The parties do not anticipate any amendment to the pleadings. Leave to amend pleadings should only be granted pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6. Evidence Preservation Joint Statement: The parties are taking all appropriate steps to preserve any available evidence. The parties have reviewed any applicable document and electronic information retention policies and will take all steps necessary to ensure the preservation of evidence relevant to likely issues in the action. 7. Disclosures Joint Statement: The parties have agreed to exchange their initial disclosures by hand or e-mail on or before April 22, 2008. Following the case management conference, the parties agree to meet and confer on the sufficiency of the initial disclosures to determine whether supplemental disclosures are necessary. 8. Discovery Joint Statement: The parties will need discovery on all the subjects normally at issue in FMLA, wrongful termination, and deprivation of procedural due process claims and, specifically, -4JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT (CASE NO. C 08-0224-PJH)
1444384.2

Case 3:08-cv-00224-PJH

Document 11

Filed 04/17/2008

Page 5 of 8

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 all the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint. Currently, there does not appear to be a need to conduct discovery in phases or limit discovery to particular issues. Plaintiff anticipates propounding interrogatories, requests for document production and requests for admissions on Defendant. Plaintiff also anticipates deposing witnesses employed by Defendant. Defendant intends to propound interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production to Plaintiff and intends to take the depositions of Plaintiff and any other witnesses that may be identified in written discovery and Plaintiffs deposition. The parties propose to complete non-expert discovery by December 15, 2008. Expert witness designations shall be made on or before February 7, 2009. Rebuttal expert designations shall be made on or before February 22, 2009. The parties agree that the limitations on discovery imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should apply to this case, except that the parties agree that Defendant may take Plaintiff's deposition and Plaintiff may take the deposition of one CCCTA representative for up to two days, if needed. The parties agree to meet and confer if additional changes to the limitations on discovery are needed as litigation progresses. 9. Class Actions Joint Statement: This action is not a class action. 10. Related Cases Joint Statement: The parties are unaware of any related cases or proceedings currently pending. 11. Relief Plaintiff's Position: Plaintiff seeks an order reinstating him to his former position as a Bus Driver, and further seeks to be "made whole," including but not limited to damages for any economic harm, back pay and any applicable benefit contributions he would have received but for his termination. Plaintiff also seeks further damages for any non-economic harm -5JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT (CASE NO. C 08-0224-PJH)
1444384.2

Case 3:08-cv-00224-PJH

Document 11

Filed 04/17/2008

Page 6 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6

suffered by Plaintiff. Plaintiff further seeks attorneys fees and costs. Defendant's Position: Defendant does not seek damages. Even if liability is established, Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any damages or to reinstatement. 12. Settlement and ADR Joint Statement:

7 The parties filed their Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference and their ADR 8 Certifications on April 3, 2008. The ADR Phone Conference has been scheduled for 9 April 22, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 arbitration, or under the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation. 17 18 19 20 trial narrowing. 21 22 23 through a dispositive motion. 24 25 26 27 basis. 28 -6JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT (CASE NO. C 08-0224-PJH)
1444384.2

13.

Consent to Magistrate Judge for All Purposes Joint Position: The parties do not consent to the use of a magistrate judge for all purposes.

14.

Other References Joint Position: The parties do not view this case as suitable for a special master, binding

15.

Narrowing of issues Plaintiff's Position: Plaintiff does not believe at this time that the legal issues in this case require pre-

Defendant's Position: Defendants believe the legal issues in this case can be decided by the Court

16.

Expedited Schedule Joint Position: The parties do not believe that this case is amenable to handling on an expedited

Case 3:08-cv-00224-PJH

Document 11

Filed 04/17/2008

Page 7 of 8

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

17.

Scheduling Joint Proposed Schedule Deadline to complete non-expert discovery: December 15, 2008 Deadline to file dispositive motions: January 15, 2009 Deadline to designate expert witnesses: February 7, 2009 Deadline to designate rebuttal experts: February 22, 2009 Deadline to complete expert discovery: March 30, 2009 Final pre-trial conference: May 5, 2009 Trial date: May 19, 2009

18.

Trial Plaintiff's Position: Plaintiff demanded trial by jury. Joint Position: The parties anticipate trial to last 4-6 days.

19.

Disclosure Of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons Plaintiff's Statement: Plaintiff is presently unaware of any non-party interested entities or persons. Defendant's Statement: Pursuant to Local Rule 3-16(a), Defendant is not required to file a "Certification of

Interested Entities or Persons" because it is a public entity. // //

-7JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT (CASE NO. C 08-0224-PJH)
1444384.2

Case 3:08-cv-00224-PJH

Document 11

Filed 04/17/2008

Page 8 of 8