Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05205/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05205-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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- Case No. C 04 5205

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

JOHN F. DEMEO, SBN 28891

JOSHUA M. WEST, SBN 118463

DeMEO & DeMEO

565 W. College Avenue

Santa Rosa, CA 95401

Telephone: (707) 545-3232

Facsimile: (707) 545-1725

Attorneys for Plaintiff

TRACEY MEASE

BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP

MICHAEL J. LOEB, SBN 61927

JACQUELINE S. BRONSON, SBN 222169

Three Embarcadero Center, 18th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111-4067

Telephone: (415) 393-2000

Facsimile: (415) 393-2286

THOMAS P. MURPHY

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

JEFFERY B. HARDIE

(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)

HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP

1751 Pinnacle Drive, Ste. 1700

Mclean, Virginia 22102

Telephone: (703) 714-7400

Facsimile: (703) 714-7410

Attorneys for Defendants

SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING SERVICES, INC.;

SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, INC.; SUNRISE

SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

TRACEY MEASE,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIGHTON GARDENS ASSISTED

LIVING, ET AL.

Defendants.

___________________________________/

Case No. C 04 5205 - SC

UPDATED JOINT CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

STATEMENT and PROPOSED ORDER

Date: November 18, 2005

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Ctrm.: 1 - 17 Fl., San Francisco

Trial: TBA

///

Case 3:04-cv-05205-SC Document 18 Filed 11/01/2005 Page 1 of 6
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- Case No. C 04 5205

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

The parties jointly submit this updated Case Management Statement and proposed Order

and request the Court to adopt it as the Case Management Order in this case. The parties

respectfully request that since settlement is likely imminent (pending agreement on language of

the settlement agreement), that the Court continue the Case Management Hearing for a period of

at least forty-five (45) days to permit the parties to conclude the matter and file the necessary

Stipulation for Dismissal and to excuse the need for an appearance by Counsel (one firm of

which is out of State) at the scheduled hearing.

I. DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE:

A. Brief Description of the Events Underlying the Action:

Please see previous case management conference statement filed jointly by the parties in

connection with the April 8, 2005, conference.

II. THE PRINCIPAL FACTUAL ISSUES WHICH THE PARTIES DISPUTE:

Please see previous case management conference statement filed jointly by the parties in

connection with the April 8, 2005, conference.

III. THE PRINCIPAL LEGAL ISSUES WHICH THE PARTIES DISPUTE:

Whether the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing applied to plaintiff’s

employment relationship in light of the fact that she was employed at will; whether the public

policies asserted by plaintiff are sufficient to support a cause of action for wrongful termination;

whether plaintiff was terminated based on defendant’s consideration of legally impermissible

factors; whether plaintiff properly mitigated her damages; whether a sufficient basis exists for

the imposition of punitive damages; whether plaintiff’s claims for general damages are barred by

California Labor Code, Section 3600 et seq:, and whether defendants breached an implied

contract of continued employment for TRACEY MEASE.

IV. THE OTHER FACTUAL ISSUES [E.G., SERVICE OF PROCESS,

PERSONAL JURISDICTION, SUBJECT MATTER, JURISDICTION OR

VENUE] WHICH REMAIN UNRESOLVED FOR THE REASONS

STATED BELOW AND HOW THE PARTIES PROPOSE TO RESOLVE

THOSE ISSUES:

Case 3:04-cv-05205-SC Document 18 Filed 11/01/2005 Page 2 of 6
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- Case No. C 04 5205

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

None.

V. THE PARTIES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED AND THE

REASONS:

None; all unserved parties have been dismissed.

VI. THE ADDITIONAL PARTIES WHICH THE BELOW-SPECIFIED

PARTIES INTEND TO JOIN AND THE INTENDED TIME FRAME FOR

SUCH JOINDER:

None that the parties are aware of presently.

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

VII. ASSIGNMENT OF THIS CASE TO A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

FOR TRIAL:

The parties do not consent to the assignment of this case to a Magistrate for all purposes,

including trial.

VIII. ADR ASSIGNMENT:

This case was assigned to the District’s ADR Multi-option Program and a mediation was

held before Evelyn M. Hunt, Esq. on June 22, 2005, with multiple follow up sesssions by

telephone with said mediator. The parties have agreed to a tentative resolution of the case and

are presently negotiating and finalizing the language of the settlement agreement. Counsel are

hopeful their respective clients will be able to agree on acceptable verbiage soon.

IX. THE ADR PROCESS TO WHICH THE PARTIES REQUEST

REFERRAL:

As set forth above, the case has already undergone the mediation process and a tentative

settlement has been achieved, subject to agreement on the acceptable language to be included in

the settlement agreement.

DISCLOSURES

X. THE PARTIES HAVE MADE THE FOLLOWING DISCLOSURES:

The parties were scheduled to exchange their Rule 26 disclosures on April 1, 2005. 

Case 3:04-cv-05205-SC Document 18 Filed 11/01/2005 Page 3 of 6
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- Case No. C 04 5205

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Plaintiff has made five different document disclosures and produced all documents required by

Rule 26; defendants have likewise made their document disclosure and have produced all

documents required by Rule 26.

DISCOVERY

XI. THE PARTIES PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING DISCOVERY PLAN:

In light of the position of the case, the Court is respectfully respected to defer on the

issues of a time-frame for any further discovery sequence, expert disclosure, dispositive motion

and trial setting. Extensive discovery has already taken place with both sides having exchanged

and complied with various written discovery requests and the depositions of Plaintiff Mease,

former Sunrise Employees Mead, Sousa, Rotella, and Aust, and State Licensing Analyst

Hillback. Additional deposition discovery will be required if for some reason the parties are

unable to reach consensus on the language of the settlement agreement but at present time the

parties appear close to a resolution.

TRIAL SCHEDULE

XII. THE PARTIES REQUEST A TRIAL DATE AS FOLLOWS:

In light of the position of the case, the Court is respectfully respected to defer on the

issues of a time-frame for any further discovery sequence, expert disclosure, dispositive motion

and trial setting.

XIII. THE PARTIES EXPECT THAT THE TRIAL WILL LAST FOR THE

FOLLOWING NUMBER OF DAYS:

Five (5) or six (6) court days (jury).

SIGNATURE AND CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-6, each of the undersigned certifies that he or she has read the

brochure entitled “Dispute Resolution Procedures in the Northern District of California,”

discussed the available dispute resolution options provided by the Court and private entities and

has considered whether this case might benefit from any of the available dispute resolution

options.

Case 3:04-cv-05205-SC Document 18 Filed 11/01/2005 Page 4 of 6
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- Case No. C 04 5205

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Dated: November 1, 2005 DeMEO & DeMEO 

/s/ Josh ua M. West

Joshua M. West

Attorneys for Plaintiff

TRACEY MEASE

Dated: November 1, 2005 BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP

and

HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP

By /s/ Jeffrey B. Hardie, Esq. Thomas P. Murphy, Esq. or

Jeffrey B. Hardie, Esq.

Counsel Pro Hac Vice for 

Attorneys for Defendants Sunrise Senior Living

Services, Inc., Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., and

Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc.

Case 3:04-cv-05205-SC Document 18 Filed 11/01/2005 Page 5 of 6
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- Case No. C 04 5205

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

The Case Management Statement and Proposed Order is hereby adopted by the Court as

the Case Management Order for the case and the parties are ordered to comply with this Order as

follows:

The Case Management Conference is continued to ___________________________ at

10:00 a.m. for Trial Setting. In the event a Stipulation for Dismissal of the action is filed before

the hearing then the matter will be dropped and removed from calendar by the Court without the

need for appearance by counsel for the parties. In the event the case has not resolved and no

Stipulation for Dismissal has been filed then the parties are required to file the requisite updated

case management conference statement within the time set forth by law and counsel shall appear

at the updated case management conference for trial setting purposes at the date set forth above

for the conference.

Dated: _____________________ ______________________________

Samuel Conti

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05205-SC Document 18 Filed 11/01/2005 Page 6 of 6

January 6, 2006

November 16, 2005

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Samuel Conti