Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00647/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00647-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN WHEELER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-0647 SBA

ORDER

[Docket Nos. 45, 49]

On February 11, 2005, defendant City of Oakland filed a Notice of Removal, thereby removing

the above-captioned action to this Court. Also on February 11, 2005, this Court scheduled the initial

Case Management Conference to take place on June 15, 2005. 

On May 27, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Entry of Default as to defendants Brookfield

Homeowners Association and Wiley Williams. On May 31, 2005, the Clerk of Court declined to enter

default. 

On June 6, 2005, Plaintiffs and the City of Oakland (the "City") filed a Joint Case Management

Conference Statement.

On June 7, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a renewed Motion for Entry of Default as to defendants

Brookfield Homeowners Association and Wiley Williams. On June 8, 2005, the Clerk of Court entered

default against Brookfield Homeowners Association and Wiley Williams. 

On June 15, 2005, the Court held a Case Management Conference. On July 29, 2005, the Court

issued its Order for Pretrial Preparation ("Pretrial Order"). Pursuant to the Pretrial Order, this case is

scheduled to proceed to trial on June 26, 2006. 

Case 4:05-cv-00647-SBA Document 57 Filed 05/25/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

On January 30, 2006, the Court issued an Order noting that there had been no activity in the case

since the Pretrial Order was filed. The Court also noted that Plaintiffs had not filed any proofs of service

with the Court showing that defendants Ronald Abad ("Abad"), David Carrillo ("Carillo"), Richard

Fielding ("Fielding"), James Fisher ("Fisher"), David Kozicki ("Kozicki"), Isaac Wilson ("Wilson"),

Isagani Pugao ("Pugao"), Arlene M. Rosen ("Rosen"), or Calvin Wong ("Wong") had been served with

the summons and the First Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiffs were ordered to show cause

as to why those defendants should not be dismissed from the lawsuit. Plaintiffs were also ordered to

show cause as to why a motion for default judgment had not been filed with respect to Brookfield

Homeowners Association and Wiley Williams.

On February 8, 2006, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a Certificate of Counsel in response to the Court's

Order to Show Cause. The Certificate indicated that all defendants but Calvin Wong had been served

with the summons and the First Amended Complaint. Counsel for Plaintiffs also indicated that Plaintiffs

were waiting to file a motion for default judgment against defendants Brookfield Homeowners

Association and Wiley Williams until after the action had been resolved with respect to the remaining

defendants. 

On March 3, 2006, defendants Abad, Carrillo, Fielding, Fisher, Kozicki, Wilson, Pugao, and

Rosen (collectively referred to herein as the "Individual Defendants") voluntarily appeared in the action

by filing a Motion to Dismiss. Also on March 3, 2006, the City filed a Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings. On March 13, 2006, the Court issued an Order vacating the Order to Show Cause as moot.

On April 28, 2006, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Individual

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and granting the City's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Pursuant

to the Court's April 28, 2006 Order, the City was dismissed from the lawsuit with prejudice.

Additionally: (1) Plaintiffs' first cause of action was dismissed with prejudice with respect to defendants

Fielding, Fisher, Wilson, and Rosen; (2) Plaintiffs' third and fifth causes of action were dismissed with

prejudice; and (3) Plaintiffs' fourth cause of action was dismissed with prejudice. Defendant Calvin

Wong was also dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiffs' failure to comply with Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4(m). 

On May 2, 2006, defendants Abad, Carillo, Kozicki, and Pugao filed a Motion to Modify Case

Case 4:05-cv-00647-SBA Document 57 Filed 05/25/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In the Stipulation, the parties request a trial date of September 25, 2006. However, they do not

specify any dates for the other relevant pretrial deadlines, such as the motion cut-off date, the pretrial

preparation deadline, or the pretrial conference date. 

3

Management Deadline Pursuant to Local Rule 6-3. In the Motion to Modify Case Management

Deadline, defendants Abad, Carillo, Kozicki, and Pugao request leave to file a belated motion for

summary judgment in order to resolve the remaining issues in the case, thereby obviating the need for

a trial. On May 3, 2006, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Motion to Modify Case Management

Deadline. In the opposition, Plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Thomas Ho'okano attempts to cast blame on Deputy

City Attorney Gloria Lee for failing to file defendants' summary judgment motions before the motion

cut-off deadline of May 2, 2006. Mr. Ho'okano also requests that the Court decline to consider any

summary judgment motions before the Court has had a chance to review, and rule on, Plaintiffs' Motion

for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration. On May 8, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave

to File a Motion for Reconsideration.

On May 23, 2006, the parties filed a Stipulation to Amend the Pre-Trial Order, to Extend the

Time for Motions and to Continue the Trial Date.1

Having read and considered the parties' submissions, the Court notes that both parties are equally

at fault for the current predicament they find themselves in. For example, while it is true that the City's

decision to wait until the very last minute to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings has contributed

to a substantial amount of the delay in this case, Plaintiffs' failure to properly serve the individual

defendants – necessitating the issuance of an order to show cause – has also wreaked havoc on the

Court's ability to facilitate a timely and orderly resolution of this case. Indeed, due to Plaintiffs' failure

to effectively prosecute this action, this case remained inactive for a period of over six months. In sum,

the Court sternly disapproves of the way that this case has been handled by all of the parties.

Nevertheless, the Court recognizes the fact that judicial economy will likely be furthered if the relevant

legal issues can be narrowed, or the case resolved, before additional resources are expended on a trial.

Therefore, in order to most efficiently address and resolve the current issues that have been

presented to the Court, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT defendants Abad, Carillo, Kozicki, and Pugao's Motion to

Case 4:05-cv-00647-SBA Document 57 Filed 05/25/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Modify Case Management Deadline [Docket No. 45] is GRANTED IN PART. The parties shall

immediately meet and confer and, after consulting with the Courtroom deputy as to the available trial

dates, file an amended stipulation with the Court, no later than June 6, 2006, that sets forth new

proposed dates for a motion cut-off deadline, pretrial filing deadline, pretrial conference, and trial. The

parties' proposed trial date shall be no later than December 11, 2006. The parties are hereby advised

that the June 13, 2006 pretrial conference and June 26, 2006 trial date will NOT be vacated until

the Court has reviewed, and approved, the parties' amended stipulation. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT defendants City of Oakland, Abad, Carillo, Fielding,

Fisher, Kozicki, Wilson, Pugao, and Rosen shall file a response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File

a Motion for Reconsideration [Docket No. 49] no later than June 13, 2006. Defendants' response shall

not exceed twenty (20) pages. Thereafter, the Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration

will be taken under submission. To conserve judicial resources, no party shall file a motion for

summary judgment until the Court has issued its ruling on the Motion for Leave to File a Motion for

Reconsideration. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: 5/25/06 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00647-SBA Document 57 Filed 05/25/06 Page 4 of 4