Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00026/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00026-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY MORRIS, )

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ) 

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:09-cv-00026 LJO GSA

ORDER REGARDING VIABLE CAUSES OF

ACTION 

ORDER REGARDING CERTAIN DEFENSES

TO BE ASSERTED

ORDER REGARDING OFFER OF PROOF

REGARDING ESTIMATED TIME FOR TRIAL

On July 22, 2010, a scheduling conference was held in this matter. Because numerous

issues arose during the conference, this Order clarifies the remaining causes of action and

imposes additional deadlines.

REMAINING CAUSES OF ACTION

As the Court indicated during the scheduling conference, the following causes of action

remain pending: the Fourth Cause of Action against County of Fresno and Elizabeth Egan; the

Sixth Cause of Action against County of Fresno and Elizabeth Egan; the Seventh Cause of

Action against County of Fresno and Elizabeth Egan; and the Eighth Cause of Action.

//

//

//

1

Case 1:09-cv-00026-LJO-GSA Document 140 Filed 07/23/10 Page 1 of 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

The parties’ joint scheduling statement identified a total of five claims, including the Fifth

and Ninth causes of action, yet omitted any reference to the Eighth Cause of Action altogether. 

(See Doc. 137 at 20-21.) Based on a review of the docket, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Fifth

and Ninth Causes of Action do not remain viable. 

The Fifth Cause of Action is no longer viable following Judge O’Neill’s order granting a

motion for summary judgment as to the City of Fresno and Don McAlpine. (Doc. 115.) Further,

Judge O’Neill’s order adopting the Findings and Recommendations dated December 16, 2009,

dismissed this claim as to the Doe defendants and Insurance defendants. (Docs. 93 & 96.) It

appears the cause of action was not directed to the County of Fresno or Elizabeth Egan as it

specifically named the “Fire Defendants, Insurance Defendants and Doe 21" (see Complaint, ¶¶

104-113).

The Ninth Cause of Action is no longer viable following Judge O’Neill’s order adopting

the Findings and Recommendations dated December 16, 2009, regarding the Mortgage

defendants, Insurance defendants and Deed defendants. (Docs. 93 & 96.) The June 9, 2010, 

order granting summary judgment as to the City of Fresno and Don McAlpine also addressed this

claim. (Doc. 115.) Additionally, it is noted that on August 22, 2008, the State Bar defendants

were dismissed from the action. In this same order, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton in the United

States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed this claim in its entirety

(see Doc. 42 at 5-6 [“Third, the court also DISMISSES with prejudice plaintiff’s ninth and

thirteenth claims for relief, which allege (a) a claim pursuant to the California Constitution’s

right to privacy, and (b) a claim for obstruction of justice . . .”]).

In the event any party disagrees with the foregoing, the party shall file a brief addressing

the disputed cause or causes of action identified herein within fifteen (15) days of the date of this

Order. The brief shall include specific citations to any relevant or referenced pleading and/or the

procedural record in this case. Failure to file a brief within this time frame constitutes a waiver

to challenge the remaining causes of action.

//

//

2

Case 1:09-cv-00026-LJO-GSA Document 140 Filed 07/23/10 Page 2 of 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

DEADLINE REGARDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO BE ASSERTED

The Court has the inherent authority to manage its own docket and recognizes the

importance of early resolution regarding the following issues: collateral estoppel, immunities,

statute of limitations, respondeat superior and the Tort Claims Act as they may pertain to the

County of Fresno and Elizabeth Egan. Therefore, any motion addressing the resolution of the

issues listed above must be filed with the Court no later than November 1, 2010, and must be

calendared and heard before District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill. Failure to file any such motion

will result in waiver of these defenses.

DEADLINE REGARDING OFFER OF PROOF

The parties’ joint scheduling statement included an estimate of “nineteen court days” for

the length of the jury trial in this matter. (Doc. 137 at 32.) In light of this unusually lengthy

estimate, on or before July 15, 2011, the parties shall provide an offer of proof as to the substance

of all witness testimony, as well as an estimate of the time involved for both direct examination

and cross-examination of each witness, as the trial court intends to secure an accurate estimate

regarding the length of any jury trial. 

Following receipt of the offers of proof, should the Court find any time limit or

estimation provided by the parties is unreasonable, the parties are advised the Court will set its

own time limitations and the parties will be expected to abide by those limitations. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 23, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-00026-LJO-GSA Document 140 Filed 07/23/10 Page 3 of 3