Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-06268/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-06268-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

1

Case No.: 5:07-cv-06268-EJD

ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

REZA NAGAHI,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT 

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:07-cv-06268-EJD 

ORDER SETTING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

On July 11, 2014, the Ninth Circuit reversed an order granting summary judgment to 

Defendants and remanded the above-entitled action “so that [Plaintiff Reza Nagahi] might be 

provided with two possible forms of relief to which he may be eligible: the appropriate measure of 

Additional Trade Readjustment Allowance monetary benefits to which he is entitled by statute, 

and a written notification regarding his application for Remedial Education benefits.” Case No. 

11-17320, Dkt. No. 255. The mandate issued on October 15, 2014. Dkt. No. 260. 

Since that time, this court has sought to progress this case to resolution in accordance with 

the Ninth Circuit’s instruction. Indeed, after the parties appeared for a pretrial conference, a 

written notification regarding Nagahi’s application for Remedial Education benefits was provided 

to him on December 7, 2015. Dkt. No. 293. However, significant disputes remain as to the 

“appropriate measure” of Additional Trade Readjustment Allowance (“TRA”) benefits due to 

Nagahi. The substantive and procedural arguments raised in both parties’ supplemental briefing 

extend well beyond the administrative record and afford little guidance as to how the parties might 

resolve the case in a district court.

The court once again addressed these issues with the parties at a Status Conference on 

April 21, 2016. Based on the discussions held at the conference, and considering the case’s long 

and complex history, the court determined it would be in the parties’ best interest to attempt a 

Case 5:07-cv-06268-EJD Document 318 Filed 06/14/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 5:07-cv-06268-EJD

ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

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

Northern District of California

resolution through a defined settlement process. Accordingly, the parties were ordered to attend a 

settlement conference with a magistrate judge on June 3, 2016. Dkt. No. 311. The matter did not 

resolve. Dkt. No. 315. 

Consequently, the court must now determine how this litigation should proceed. 

Following the Ninth Circuit’s remand, the discussions have focused primarily on the calculation of 

benefits issue. However, the court observes that this action actually asserts constitutional and civil 

rights claims, including violations of the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth 

Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), 1986, and 2000(d) et seq., and it is these claims that 

establish federal jurisdiction. In addition, the court notes that other than identifying the “two 

possible forms of relief” for which Nagahi “may be eligible” upon remand, the Ninth Circuit 

reversed the summary judgment order without further instruction or qualification. Accordingly, it 

now appears that all claims initially contained in the Complaint are again before the court.

Based on this history, and given the present circumstances, the court orders as follows:

1. The court schedules a Further Case Management Conference for 11:00 a.m. on 

August 4, 2016 in Courtroom No. 1, 5th Floor, of the San Jose Federal Courthouse, located at 280 

South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113. 

2. The parties shall each file a Case Management Conference Statement as permitted 

by Civil Local Rule 16-9 on or before July 21, 2016. 

Each party’s statement shall include, in addition to the content required by the Standing 

Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California and Civil Local Rule, a proposal 

describing how this case should proceed. Specifically, the parties should discuss whether it is now 

appropriate to engage in a renewed round of summary judgment to address the outstanding claims. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-06268-EJD Document 318 Filed 06/14/16 Page 2 of 2