Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01480/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01480-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOROTHY HICKS and FAIR HOUSING

COUNCIL OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CYPRESS ESTATES, INC., HENRY

NUNEZ and MINNIE AVILA,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv-1480 OWW DLB

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(5/7/07 10:00 Ctrm. 3) 

Discovery Cut-Off: 11/21/07

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 12/10/07

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 12/21/07

Settlement Conference Date:

1/3/08 10:00 Ctrm. 9

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 2/25/08 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 3/25/08 9:00

ctrm. 3 (JT-6 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

April 6, 2007.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

There was no appearance on behalf of Plaintiff.

Allman & Nielsen by Sara B. Allman, Esq., appeared on behalf

of Defendants. 

1. Defendants’ counsel has represented that there was

Case 1:06-cv-01480-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 04/11/07 Page 1 of 12
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

joint participation in the preparation of the Joint Scheduling

Conference Statement and, to prevent the necessity of a second

Scheduling Conference occasioned by the failure of Plaintiff’s

counsel to appear, to minimize inconvenience and expense to the

Defendants, the Court adopts the following Scheduling Conference

Order:

2. Brancart and Brancart by Christopher Brancart shall

show cause, if any they have, on May 7, 2007, at the hour of

10:00 a.m., why they failed to appear telephonically for the

Joint Scheduling Conference. 

III. Summary of Pleadings.

1. This is a fair housing case. Plaintiffs, Dorothy Hicks

and Fair Housing Council of Central California (“FHCCC”), seek

monetary, declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants

for discriminating against persons with disabilities in the

operation of the Cypress Estates Apartment Complex in violation

of the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and

related state laws. Defendants deny the allegations and contend

that any actions taken were for legitimate, non-discriminatory

reasons, and that Plaintiffs lack standing.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the First Amended

Complaint once the first round of discovery is completed in order

to determine whether additional Defendants or claims need to be

added.

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

Case 1:06-cv-01480-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 12
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

3

1. Plaintiff Dorothy Hicks resides in Unit 107 of the

Cypress Estates in Reedley.

2. Ms. Hicks has been a resident at the Cypress

Estates Apartments since July 2006 at a charged rent of $580.

3. Defendant Minnie Avila is and has been the

resident manager at the Cypress Estates.

4. Defendant Henry Nunez individually has had a role

in the management of the Cypress Estates.

5. Defendant Cypress Estates, Inc., is a California

corporation.

B. Contested Facts.

1. Ms. Hicks is handicapped within the meaning of the

Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h), and is disabled

within the meaning of California Government Code § 12955.3. 

2. Cypress Estates is a dwelling under the Fair

Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3602.

3. Defendant Cypress Estates, Inc., is an owner and

operator of the Cypress Estates.

4. Defendant Henry Nunez owns and operates Cypress

Estates, Inc.

5. Mr. Nunez is also an owner and operator of the

Cypress Estates.

6. As the owner and operator, Mr. Nunez sets policy

for the operation of Cypress Estates and supervises and employs

Defendant Minnie Avila.

7. Defendant Minnie Avila is employed as the onsite

manager for the Cypress Estates.

8. Defendants advertise Cypress Estates as housing

Case 1:06-cv-01480-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 04/11/07 Page 3 of 12
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

for persons age 50 and older.

9. From at least 2000 until April 2004, Defendants

utilized an addendum to their lease agreement with tenants that

stated in paragraph 30:

TENANTS SHALL BE ABLE TO INDEPENDENTLY CARE FOR

THEMSELVES AND PERFORM DAILY LIVING ACTIVITIES. OWNER

SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THIS LEASE IF OWNER

IN ITS ABSOLUTE DISCRETION DETERMINES THAT TENANT IS

NOT ABLE TO INDEPENDENTLY CARE FOR THEMSELVES AND/OR

TENANT IS A DANGER TO OTHERS OR TO THEMSELVES. OWNER

RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ESTABLISH RULES AND RESTRICTIONS

PERTAINING TO TENANTS WHO MAY NEED TEMPORARY

ASSISTANCE.

10. On March 16, 2004, the Fair Housing Council wrote

to Minnie Avila at Cypress Estates advising her that paragraph 30

of Defendants’ lease addendum, imposing an “independent living”

requirement on tenants, discriminated against persons with

disabilities.

11. In a letter dated March 19, 2004, Mr. Nunez

responded to the Fair Housing Council’s request for a reasonable

accommodation for their complainant.

12. On April 16, 2004, the Fair Housing Council

followed up with another letter to Ms. Avila, seeking a response

to its concerns regarding paragraph 30 of the Cypress Estates

lease addendum.

13. On November 18, 2004, the Fair Housing Council

filed a housing discrimination complaint with the United States

Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), alleging

that the Cypress Estates “independent living” requirement

discriminated against persons with disabilities in violation of

the Fair Housing Act.

14. On July 6, 2005, HUD advised the Fair Housing

Case 1:06-cv-01480-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 04/11/07 Page 4 of 12
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

5

Council that the California DFEH had determined that reasonable

cause did not exist to believe that a discriminatory practice had

occurred, and that the DFEH had dismissed the complaint, based

upon the representation that the “independent living” requirement

was no longer enforced.

15. On September 6, 2006, Ms. Hicks received a thirtyday notice of termination of tenancy.

16. On September 18, 2006, Ms. Hicks received a threeday notice to pay rent or quit.

17. The September 18, 2006, notice, signed by Minnie

Avila, demanded that Ms. Hicks pay, in addition to her $580 in

rent, $90 ($45 for the returned check and an additional $45 as a

late fee), for a total payment of $670. 

18. Pursuant to the September 18, 2006 notice, Ms.

Hicks paid $670 to Defendants.

19. On September 23, 2006, Ms. Hicks received a

thirty-day notice of termination of tenancy.

20. The September 23, 2006 notice stated: “Previous

notice was given to leave. Rent not acceptable. Mr. Nunez will

draw court unlawful detainer. Mr. Nunez agrees your mother needs

to be in an assisted living facility.

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the

Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. 

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

3. Supplemental jurisdiction is invoked under 28

U.S.C. § 1367 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,

Case 1:06-cv-01480-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 04/11/07 Page 5 of 12
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

6

Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12927 and 12955 et seq. 

B. Contested. 

1. Whether Defendants have injured Plaintiffs by

committing discriminatory housing practices in violation of the

Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq.

2. Whether Defendants have injured Plaintiffs by

committing discriminatory housing practices in violation of the

California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Gov’t Code §§ 12927

and 12955 et seq.

3. Whether Defendants injured Plaintiff Dorothy Hicks

in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code

§ 51 et seq., by discriminating against persons with disabilities

in the operation of Cypress Estates, a business establishment,

because of their disabilities.

4. Whether, in acting as herein alleged in the First

Amended Complaint, Defendants injured Plaintiffs by engaging in a

pattern or practice of unlawful conduct in the operation of

Cypress Estates in violation of the California Business and

Professions Code § 17200.

5. Whether Defendants were negligent.

6. Whether Defendants injured Plaintiff Dorothy Hicks

by infringing upon her right to the quiet use, enjoyment and

possession of her dwelling in violation of Civil Code § 1927.

7. Whether Defendants injured Plaintiff Dorothy Hicks

by breaching the warranty of habitability in violation of

California Civil Code § 1941.1, and Health and Safety Code

§ 17920.3, et seq.

8. Whether Plaintiffs have standing.

Case 1:06-cv-01480-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 04/11/07 Page 6 of 12
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

7

9. Whether there has been any discrimination against

Ms. Hicks on the basis of disability.

10. Whether FHCCC has sustained any discrete,

recoverable damages.

11. Whether Ms. Hicks has any damages.

12. Whether there were legitimate, non-discriminatory

reasons for Defendants’ actions.

13. Whether Plaintiffs were comparatively at fault.

14. Whether Plaintiffs mitigated damages.

15. Whether there are third parties who bear

responsibility for the alleged damages.

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties shall exchange their initial disclosures

pursuant to Rule 26(a) FRCP on or before April 20, 2007. 

2. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before November 21, 2007.

3. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

Case 1:06-cv-01480-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 04/11/07 Page 7 of 12
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

8

witnesses, in writing, on or before September 21, 2007. Any

rebuttal or supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or

before October 22, 2007. The parties will comply with the

provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) regarding

their expert designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding,

the written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F.

R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all

information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in

compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the

testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are

not disclosed pursuant to this order.

4. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before December 10, 2007,

and heard on January 14, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate

Judge Dennis L. Beck in Courtroom 9. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than December 21, 2007, and will be heard on

Case 1:06-cv-01480-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 04/11/07 Page 8 of 12
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

9

January 28, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W.

Wanger, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. 

In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule

230. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. February 25, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th

Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States

District Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XII. Trial Date.

1. March 25, 2008, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom

3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge. 

2. Defendants have demanded trial by jury. It is not

indicated whether Plaintiffs have demanded trial by jury. 

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 4-6 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for January 3,

2008, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9 before the Honorable Dennis L.

Case 1:06-cv-01480-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 04/11/07 Page 9 of 12
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

10

Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Case 1:06-cv-01480-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 04/11/07 Page 10 of 12
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

11

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. The parties agree that the issue of punitive damages

should be tried separately in a second phase of the trial before

the same jury. The trial shall be continuous. 

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are no related matters.

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Case 1:06-cv-01480-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 04/11/07 Page 11 of 12
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

12

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01480-OWW -DLB Document 33 Filed 04/11/07 Page 12 of 12