Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03220/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03220-4/pdf.json

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

---

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT, RULE 26 (F) STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER 

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 

PAUL L. REIN, Esq. (SBN 43053) 

CELIA MCGUINNESS, Esq. (SBN 159420) 

CATHERINE CABALO, Esq. (SBN 248198) 

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. REIN 

200 Lakeside Dr., Suite A 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Telephone: 510/832-5001 

Facsimile: 510/832-4787 

reinlawoffice@aol.com 

STEVEN L. DERBY, Esq. (SBN 148372) 

THE DERBY LAW FIRM P.C. 

1255 Treat Blvd., Suite 300 

Walnut Creek, CA 94597 

Telephone: 925/472-6640 

Facsimile: 925/933-3964 

derby@derbydisabilitylaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

PETER HOLLAND and KRISTEN HOLLAND 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PETER HOLLAND and KRISTEN 

HOLLAND, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE RELATED COMPANIES, INC.; 

THIRD AND MISSION ASSOCIATES, 

LLC; DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO. 15-cv-3220 JSC 

Civil Rights 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT, RULE 26 (F) 

CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND 

PROPOSED ORDER 

The parties to the above-entitled actions submit this JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER pursuant to the Standing Order for All Judges of the 

Northern District of California dated November 1, 2014, and Civil Local Rule 16-9. 

1. Jurisdiction & Service 

 The complaint of Plaintiffs PETER HOLLAND (“Mr. Holland”) and KRISTEN 

HOLLAND (“Ms. Holland”) alleges 4 causes of action, including violations of the federal Fair 

Case4:15-cv-03220-JSW Document44 Filed10/01/15 Page1 of 6

AS MODIFIED AND VACATING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Case 4:15-cv-03220-JSW Document 45 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 6
- 2 - 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT, RULE 26 (F) STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER 

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 

Housing Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act and 

Civil Code Section 54.1 et seq. (sometimes called but not actually named “the Disabled Persons 

Act). This Court has jurisdiction over claims brought under Federal Law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331 and 1343. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims brought under 

California Law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. All Defendants have been served and have 

answered the complaint. There is presently no intention to amend the complaint to add additional 

causes of action or additional parties and Defendants do not intend to file any counter-claims or 

cross-complaints. Therefore, the pleadings are settled. 

2. Facts 

 The facts surrounding the incident giving rise to the complaint are in dispute. 

Plaintiffs PETER HOLLAND and KRISTEN HOLLAND (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) contend 

that Defendants failed to reasonably accommodate Peter Holland’s disability, that as a United 

States combat veteran with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, his PTSD was being exacerbated 

daily because of Defendants’ failure to accommodate his housing needs. Specifically, despite 

having knowledge of Mr. Holland’s PTSD diagnosis, Defendants refused to relocate Mr. Holland 

and his family while they undertook major construction on the floor directly beneath him using 

jackhammers, nail guns and other loud machinery that “triggered” Mr. Holland’s PTSD, putting 

himself and his family (including wife Plaintiff Kristen Holland and toddler daughter) at 

imminent risk to their health and stability as a result. Plaintiffs contend that this failure to 

accommodate lasted from at least April 8, 2015 until an order from this court granting Plaintiffs’ 

motion for preliminary injunction on July 23, 2015 – a period of 107 days. 

Defendants contend that they provided several reasonable accommodation options to the 

Plaintiff in compliance with their duty to engage in the interactive process. Defendants contend 

that Defendants have not been damaged and if any damages were in fact sustained, Defendants are 

not liable for said damages. Defendants contend that any delay in reasonably accommodating Mr. 

Holland was caused by Holland’s rejection of numerous reasonable accommodations. 

Case 4:15-cv-03220-JSW Document 45 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 6 Case4:15-cv-03220-JSW Document44 Filed10/01/15 Page2 of 6
- 3 - 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT, RULE 26 (F) STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER 

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. Legal Issues 

 At issue in the complaint are whether the Defendants failed to provide a 

reasonable accommodation to their tenants, Plaintiffs herein, despite acknowledgment of Mr. 

Holland’s PTSD diagnosis and alleged disability-related need for relocation ;whether such 

relocation posed an undue financial or administrative burden on Defendants; whether 

Defendants’ actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, California’s Unruh 

Civil Rights Act and Disabled Person’s Act; and whether Defendants were negligent and caused 

any harm to the Plaintiffs. 

4. Motions 

 Plaintiffs may bring a motion for partial summary judgment and/or clarification of 

issues under FRCP Rule 56(f) based upon Defendants’ pre-litigation admissions and the lack of 

any evidence to support a finding of undue burden. 

 Defendants’ may also file a motion for summary judgment based upon 

Defendants’ contention that provided a reasonable accommodation to Plaintiff. 

5. Amendment of Pleadings 

 As indicated above, no party presently intends to amend its pleadings. 

6. Evidence Preservation 

 The parties are familiar with the ESI Guidelines. The parties are taking 

reasonable and proportionate steps to preserve evidence relevant to the issues at bar. The parties 

do not presently anticipate any issues requiring assistance from the court. 

7. Disclosures 

 The parties intend to exchange initial disclosures on October 2, 2015, concurrent 

with the filing of this statement. To facilitate settlement, Plaintiffs have agreed to provide 

defense counsel with a copy of their preliminary expert report from Dr. William Sastry, 

psychiatric expert on or before October 19, 2015, as a settlement-privileged document. This 

report will amend and supplement Plaintiffs’ initial disclosure submitted on October 2, 2015. 

 

Case 4:15-cv-03220-JSW Document 45 Filed 10/02/15 Page 3 of 6 Case4:15-cv-03220-JSW Document44 Filed10/01/15 Page3 of 6
- 4 - 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT, RULE 26 (F) STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER 

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. Discovery 

 The parties have met and conferred pursuant to Rule 26(f) and have agreed on the 

following discovery to occur by the date indicated: 

Deposition of Deborah Lunn on or before December 31, 2015 

Deposition of Peter Holland on or before December 31, 2015 

Deposition of Kristen Holland on or before December 31, 2015 

These will be depositions on all relevant topics and may last up to seven (7) hours each. They 

will proceed in the order indicated in this statement unless otherwise stipulated in writing. 

9. Class Actions 

 Not applicable. 

10. Related Cases 

 Not applicable. 

11. Relief 

 Plaintiffs have sought and received an order granting preliminary injunction from 

this court, which order was entered on July 23, 2015. Defendants have appealed that decision to 

the Ninth Circuit and that appeal is now pending. Plaintiffs seek statutory damages for each 

violation of the Unruh Act ($4,000 per day of violation) and the “Disabled Persons Act ($1,000 

per day of violation). Plaintiffs also seek up to three times the amount of actual damages 

pursuant to California Civil Code Sections 52.1 and 54 as well as policy-based injunctive relief 

and attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs. 

 Defendants seek dismissal of the complaint against them or alternatively 

judgment that they have no legal liability to Plaintiffs for the matters alleged in this action. 

12. Settlement and ADR 

 The parties have enlisted the assistance of Margaret Corrigan, Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeal, as mediator and plan to have at least one mediation session with Ms. Corrigan in the 

next sixty (60) days. 

13. Consent to Magistrate Judge For All Purposes 

 Defendants declined consent to a magistrate judge. 

Case 4:15-cv-03220-JSW Document 45 Filed 10/02/15 Page 4 of 6 Case4:15-cv-03220-JSW Document44 Filed10/01/15 Page4 of 6
- 5 - 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT, RULE 26 (F) STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER 

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 

14. Other References 

 Not applicable. 

15. Narrowing of Issues 

 Because of the current factual disputes, the parties are not able to narrow the 

issues at bar. Plaintiffs contemplate that a motion for summary adjudication or clarification under 

FRCP Rule 56(f) may be necessary to narrow the issues for trial. 

16. Expedited Trial Procedure 

 This case is not suitable for Expedited Trial Procedure. 

17. Scheduling 

 After meeting and conferring, the parties propose the following deadlines be 

imposed by the court: 

Discovery Cut-off: January 15, 2016 

Designation of Experts: February 15, 2016 

Hearing of Dispositive Motions: April 15, 2016 

Pretrial Conference: June 15, 2016 

Trial: July 10, 2016 

18. Trial 

 Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial. Expected length of trial is 4-5 trial days. 

19. Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons 

 None. 

20. Professional Conduct 

 Counsel have reviewed the Guidelines for Professional Conduct for the Northern 

District of California. 

21. Other 

 Because of the interlocutory appeal of the court’s grant of Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiffs’ counsel have not sought an interim award of fees and costs as 

would be their right under Civil Code Section 55 [see Barrios v. California Interscholastic 

Case4:15-cv-03220-JSW Document44 Filed10/01/15 Page5 of 6

at 9:00 a.m. June 27, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. Jury Selection and Trial August 1, 2016 at 8:00 a.m.

Case 4:15-cv-03220-JSW Document 45 Filed 10/02/15 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT, RULE 26 (F) STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER 

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 

Federation 277 F3d. 1128 (9th Cir. 2002)] If the appeal results in affirmance of the trial court’s 

order, Plaintiffs’ counsel may seek an interim fee award. 

Dated: October 1, 2015 LAW OFFICES OF PAUL L. REIN

Attorneys for Plaintiffs PETER HOLLAND 

and KRISTEN HOLLAND 

 By: /s/ 

 Celia McGuinness, Esq. 

Dated: October 1, 2015 KIMBALL, TIREY & ST. JOHN LLP 

Attorneys for Defendants THE RELATED 

COMPANIES, INC. and THIRD AND 

MISSION ASSOCIATES, LLC 

 By: /s/ 

 Eli Gordon, Esq. 

 

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 

The above JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, RULE 26 (F) STATEMENT & 

PROPOSED ORDER is approved as the Case Management Order for this case and all parties 

shall comply with its provisions. [In addition, the Court makes the further orders stated below:] 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

 

 

 HON. JEFFREY S. WHITE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case4:15-cv-03220-JSW Document44 Filed10/01/15 Page6 of 6

as modified above with regard to the pretrial and trial dates. October 2, 2015The case management conference scheduled for October 9, 2015 is VACATED.

Case 4:15-cv-03220-JSW Document 45 Filed 10/02/15 Page 6 of 6