Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04240/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04240-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

Falconer v. County of Santa Cruz, et al., Case No. C06-04240 JW Joint Case Management Conference Statement 

-1- 

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

DANA McRAE, State Bar No. 142231 

County Counsel, County of Santa Cruz 

JASON M. HEATH, State Bar No. 180501 

Assistant County Counsel 

701 Ocean Street, Room 505 

Santa Cruz, California 95060 

Telephone: (831) 454-2040 

Fax: (831) 454-2115 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION 

HILLARY L. FALCONER and D.W. 

FALCONER, INC., dba BRIARCLIFF FARM, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, COUNTY OF 

SANTA CRUZ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 

JANET K. BEAUTZ, DAVID LAUGHLIN, 

RICHARD NIEUWSTAD, NANCY COLE, and 

DOES 1-50, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C 06-04240 JW 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND 

REQUEST FOR FURTHER STAY OF 

PROCEEDINGS 

Date: February 4, 2008 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Ctrm: 8 (Hon. James Ware)

The parties to this action jointly submit the following Case Management Conference 

Statement and, as set forth in further detail below, request a further stay of these proceedings. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE

 1. A brief description of the events underlying the action: Plaintiffs Hillary L. Falconer and 

D.W. Falconer, Inc., dba Briarcliff Farm own real property consisting of a home and horse farm 

located at 2655 Soquel, San Jose Road, Soquel, CA 95073, described as APN 103-181-24. The 

horse operation on the subject property was built prior to 1980 and Plaintiffs contend that any zoning 

or permit requirements were grandfathered in under Santa Cruz County policy. Plaintiffs also 

contend that the remaining facilities on the Briarcliff Farm were all previously permitted or built 

long ago, prior to the inception of county requirements and therefore also are grandfathered in. The 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge James Ware

ORDER GRANTING FURTHER 

STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

Case 5:06-cv-04240-JW Document 40 Filed 01/30/08 Page 1 of 4
Falconer v. County of Santa Cruz, et al., Case No. C06-04240 JW Joint Case Management Conference Statement 

-2- 

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

two exceptions are a bunkhouse for workers and a nonusable trailer. The bunkhouse required an 

after-the-fact permit, changing the use to storage or being torn down. 

 The complaint seeks damages and equitable relief in that beginning in 1997 defendants redtagged the entire horse operation and most of the remaining structures and facilities alleging 

violations of Santa Cruz County codes, resulting in alleged severe damage to plaintiffs in that they 

no longer could refinance or sell the subject property during this nine-year period. This also meant 

that plaintiffs could not afford to upgrade and maintain these facilities so as to be competitive. 

2. The principal factual issues which the parties dispute: 

A. Whether the red tags issued by the County of Santa Cruz were proper. 

B. Whether Plaintiffs’ structures and operation were grandfathered and therefore did not 

 need permits. 

C. When certain structures and/or operations began or were conducted on the property. 

D. What conduct or acts were performed by County personnel, including a local 

 supervisor. 

E. What conduct by Plaintiffs, if any, contributed to delay and/or obstacles in resolving 

 the red tags. 

 3. The principal legal issues in dispute are:

A. Whether any conduct by the County and/or its agents and employees violated any 

constitutional or statutory rights of Plaintiffs. 

B. Whether Plaintiffs can establish any Monell liability by the County. 

C. Whether the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 

D. Whether any act by the County or its agents and/or employees constituted any taking 

of Plaintiffs’ property rights. 

E. Whether Plaintiffs can establish any instance of fraud by any defendant. 

F. Whether exemplary damages are warranted based on alleged conduct by defendants. 

/// 

///

Case 5:06-cv-04240-JW Document 40 Filed 01/30/08 Page 2 of 4
Falconer v. County of Santa Cruz, et al., Case No. C06-04240 JW Joint Case Management Conference Statement 

-3- 

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

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

In September 2007, the Court stayed this case in its entirety so that the parties could try to 

negotiate a settlement. Settlement of the case is complicated as it involves land-use, zoning, and 

building issues. The parties are negotiating in good faith and jointly request that the Court vacate the 

Case Management Conference scheduled for February 4, 2008 and schedule a new conference for 60 

days from now, with the parties to update the Court again via a Case Management Conference 

Statement. If the parties are unsuccessful in negotiating an agreement on their own, the parties will 

request a referral to Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg for a settlement conference. 

DISCLOSURES

 10. The parties certify that they have made the following disclosures: Plaintiffs and 

defendants have made their initial disclosure pursuant to FRCP 26. 

DISCOVERY

 11. Discovery is completed. 

TRIAL SCHEDULE

12. Defendants took their summary judgment motion off-calendar when the Court stayed the 

case in September 2007. Defendants plan to re-calendar the motion if the pending settlement 

negotiations are unsuccessful. Given the state of the proceedings, the parties are not prepared to 

suggest a date for a final pretrial conference or a trial. 

 13. The parties expect that the trial will last for the following number of days: 

7 to 10 days. 

IDENTIFICATION OF LEAD COUNSEL

 Trial counsel for Plaintiffs: Ronald Zumbrun, 3800 Watt Ave., Ste. 101, Sacramento, 

California 95821, (916) 486-5900. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 5:06-cv-04240-JW Document 40 Filed 01/30/08 Page 3 of 4
Falconer v. County of Santa Cruz, et al., Case No. C06-04240 JW Joint Case Management Conference Statement 

-4- 

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

 Trial counsel for Defendants: Jason M. Heath, Asst. County Counsel, County of Santa Cruz, 

701 Ocean Street, Rm. 505, Santa Cruz, California, (831) 454-2049. 

Dated: January 22, 2008 DANA McRAE, COUNTY COUNSEL 

 By: ________/S/_____________________ 

 JASON M. HEATH 

 Assistant County Counsel 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Dated: January 22, 2008 THE ZUMBRUN LAW FIRM 

 By: _______/S/______________________ 

 RONALD A. ZUMBRUN 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 *** ORDER ***

 In light of the parties' representations, the Court GRANTS the parties' request 

for a further stay to facilitate their settlement efforts. However, as this case has been 

stayed since September 2007 with little progress toward finalizing the settlement, this is the 

parties' last and final continuance. The Court continues the stay to April 14, 2008. The 

Court sets a Case Management Conference on April 14, 2008 at 10 a.m. On or before 

April 4, 2008, the parties shall file a Joint Case Management Statement updating the Court 

on the status of their settlement efforts. If the case does not settle by April 4, 2008, the 

parties shall include a discovery plan in their Joint Statement. 

Dated: January 30, 2008 ________________________________ 

 JAMES WARE 

 United States District Judge 

Case 5:06-cv-04240-JW Document 40 Filed 01/30/08 Page 4 of 4