Free Case Management Statement - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00146-BZ

Document 9

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 1 of 5

HENRY E. FARBER (CA State Bar No. 110553) 1 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 777 108th Avenue NE 2 Bellevue, Washington 98004-5149 Telephone: (425) 646-6100 3 Facsimile: (425) 646-6199 [email protected] 4 KATHLEEN D. POOLE (CA State Bar No. 228815) 5 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 6 San Francisco, California 94111-6533 Telephone: (415) 276-6500 7 Facsimile: (415) 276-6599 [email protected] 8 Attorneys for Defendants 9 MATHESON POSTAL SERVICES, INC. and MARCO BARRAGAN 10 11

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION JORGE ANGULO, an individual, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MATHESON POSTAL SERVICES, a California ) Corporation, MARCOS BARRAGAN, and ) DOES 1-25 inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) 0 0 ) ) Case No. C08-00146 PARTIES INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Date: Time: April 28, 2008 4:00 p.m.

Hon. Bernard Zimmerman

1
PARTIES INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT SFO 406253v1 0050734-000018

Case 3:08-cv-00146-BZ

Document 9

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 2 of 5

1 2 3

The parties jointly submit this Initial Case Management Statement: PRELIMINARY COMMENTS REGARDING PROCEDURAL STATUS OF THE CASE A few preliminary comments regarding the procedural status of the case may be helpful to

4 the Court: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff Jorge Angulo ( Plaintiff ) originally filed a claim before the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, claiming that he was retaliated against because he, a postal services carrier, was allegedly given a different mail route upon his return from leave of absence. On or about March 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed a state court Complaint alleging the same violations. Defendants were not served until December, 2007. On January 9, 2008, Defendants removed this case to federal court. Jurisdiction and Service. This Court has original jurisdiction over claims asserted under

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

12 1)

13 the Family and Medical Leave Act ( FMLA ); see 29 U.S.C. section 2617 (explicitly stating that 14 actions under the Family and Medical Leave Act ( FMLA ) may be maintained in federal 15 court). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367, this Court is also vested with the authority to exercise 16 supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claim in Plaintiff s Complaint. Plaintiff s state law 17 claim forms part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States 18 Constitution. 19 All parties to the action have been served, and personal jurisdiction and venue are not

20 contested in this case. 21 2) Facts. Plaintiff is employed by Defendant Matheson Postal Services, Inc. ( Matheson ) as

22 a driver. Matheson has contracted with the United States Postal Service ( USPS ) to provide 23 drivers (including Plaintiff) to the USPS. Plaintiff works in one of approximately four non-union 24 positions that are covered by the USPS contract, and USPS periodically notifies Matheson of 25 changes in the drivers routes and schedules. 26 In September 2005, Plaintiff took leave under the FMLA and the California Family Rights

27 Act ( CFRA ). Plaintiff returned to the same driver position in December 2005. As of April 21, 28 2008, Plaintiff is still employed by Matheson as a driver.
2
PARTIES INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT SFO 406253v1 0050734-000018

Case 3:08-cv-00146-BZ

Document 9

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 3 of 5

1

The material factual issues in dispute are as follows: (1) whether upon Plaintiff s return

2 from leave taken under the FMLA and CFRA, Plaintiff s duties, pay and benefits were similar to 3 those in place in the period prior to his taking leave; (2) whether Defendants materially changed 4 Plaintiff s schedule; (3) whether Defendants had legitimate business reasons for purportedly 5 changing Plaintiff s schedule; (4) whether any purported failure to restore Plaintiff to a 6 comparable or equivalent position damaged Plaintiff, and if so, the amount of such damage. 7 3) Legal Issues. The substantive legal issues known to Defendants are the following: (1) the

8 standard under the FMLA and CFRA for equivalent or comparable job positions; (2) whether 9 Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and/or otherwise comply with applicable 10 statutes of limitations; (3) the standard for legitimate business reasons under the FMLA and/or

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

11 CFRA; (4) whether Defendant Marco Barragan may be personally liable under the FMLA and/or 12 CFRA; (5) whether either party is entitled to legal fees. 13 4) 14 15 Motions. There are no pending motions. Defendants anticipate bringing a motion to dismiss and/or a motion for summary judgment

16 to dispose of the case or to narrow the issues to be litigated. 17 5) 18 6) Amendment of Pleadings. See response to 4. Evidence Preservation. Defendants have taken appropriate steps to preserve documents,

19 both paper and electronic, that are potentially relevant to Plaintiff s claims. 20 7) Disclosures. Defendants will exchange initial disclosures in compliance with the

21 requirements of Rule 26(a) by May 23, 2008. 22 8) 23 24 25 26 27 28 Discovery. No formal discovery has been initiated. Defendants propose the following discovery plan. a. Changes in Timing, Form and Requirements of Initial Disclosures Defendants propose that the initial disclosures be completed by May 23, 2008. b. Subjects On Which Discovery May Be Needed Defendants plan to request documents from Plaintiff and conduct his deposition within sixty (60) days.
3
PARTIES INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT SFO 406253v1 0050734-000018

Case 3:08-cv-00146-BZ

Document 9

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 4 of 5

1 2

c. Changes To Limitations Of Discovery Under Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure No changes to the limitations imposed under the Federal Rules and or local rules are

3 anticipated at this time. 4 5 6 7 d. Dates For Conclusion Of Discovery See response to 17. e. Other Orders Relating to Discovery Defendants anticipate a potential need for protective orders covering some of the

8 information Plaintiff seeks through discovery. 9 9) 10 10) Class Actions. Not applicable. Related Cases. None. Relief. Defendants do not affirmatively seek relief at this time, although Defendants will

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

11 11)

12 be seeking fees and court costs at a later juncture. 13 12) Settlement and ADR. The parties have not engaged in any ADR efforts to date, but have

14 engaged in informal settlement discussions. In accordance with ADR Local Rule 3-5, Defendants 15 request that the case be assigned to Early Neutral Evaluation ( ENE ). 16 13) Consent to Magistrate Judge. Defendants consent to assignment of this case to a

17 magistrate judge. 18 14) Other References. The case is not suitable for reference to binding arbitration, or a

19 special master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. 20 15) Narrowing of Issues. The parties will endeavor to narrow the issues by stipulation prior

21 to trial. In addition, Defendants may seek to further narrow the issues by motion for summary 22 judgment and/or motion to dismiss. 23 16) 24 17) 25 Expedited Schedule. The parties do not seek an expedited schedule. Scheduling. a. Designation of Experts. The parties propose that the experts be designated

26 no less than 90 days prior to the designated trial date. 27 28 b. Close of Discovery. The parties propose that the close of discovery occur

no less than 60 days prior to the designated trial date.
4
PARTIES INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT SFO 406253v1 0050734-000018

Case 3:08-cv-00146-BZ

Document 9

Filed 04/21/2008

Page 5 of 5

1

c.

Dispositive Motions. The parties propose that all dispositive motions be

2 filed no less than 60 days prior to trial. 3 d. Pretrial Conference. The parties propose that the pretrial conference be held

4 14 days before trial. 5 18) Trial. Plaintiff has demanded a jury trial. Defendant expects the trial to last one to two

6 days. Plaintiff expects the trial to last two to three days. The parties propose a trial date in 7 November 2008 or January 2009. 8 19) Disclosure of Non-Party Interested Entities or Persons. On January 9, 2008,

9 Defendants filed a Certificate of Interested Parties. 10 The parties have not identified any other entities or persons that could have an interest in

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

11 this action. 12 20) Other Matters. The parties are not aware of any additional matters that may facilitate the

13 just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of this matter. 14 DATED this 21st day of April 2008. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
5
PARTIES INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT SFO 406253v1 0050734-000018

Respectfully submitted, DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP By: /s/ Kathleen D. Poole Kathleen D. Poole

Attorneys for Defendants MARCO BARRAGAN and MATHESON POSTAL SERVICES, INC. TENAX LAW GROUP, P.C. By: /s/ Christopher E. Arras Christopher E. Arras

Attorneys for Plaintiff JORGE ANGULO