Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00891/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-00891-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 PETITIONER’S STATUS REPORT AND SECOND REQUEST FOR SETTING OF CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

- 1 -

ANTHONY C. RODRIGUEZ (State Bar No. 122479)

LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY C. RODRIGUEZ

1425 LEIMERT BOULEVARD, SUITE 101

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94602

Telephone: (510) 336-1536

Facsimile: (510) 336-1537

Attorney for Petitioner S.G. Borello and Sons, Inc.,

dba Eden Roc Mobilehome Park

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

S.G. Borello and Sons, Inc., dba Eden )

Roc Mobile Home Park )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

The City of Hayward and the Hayward )

Rent Review Officer, )

)

Respondents, )

)

The Tenants Residing at Eden Roc )

Mobilehome Park, et. al., )

)

Real Parties In Interest. )

____________________________________)

Case No. C-03- 0891 VRW ADR

PETITIONER’S STATUS REPORT

AND SECOND REQUEST FOR

SETTING OF CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

Date: To Be Determined

Time: 9:00 A.M.

Dept.: Courtroom 6

I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

On August 4, 2004, the Court entered a Consent Decree with respect to some, but not

all, of the Real Parties in Interest in this case. However, the Consent Decree had no impact on

the Respondents, or the remaining Real Parties Interest. In addition, the Court retained

jurisdiction with respect to the enforcement of the Consent Decree. 

The Clerk of the Court has apparently interpreted the August 4, 2004 Consent Decree

as applying to all parties in this case. As that is not the case, the Petitioner respectfully requests

the Court to set a Case Management Conference, so that the remaining parties in this case may

Case 3:03-cv-00891-VRW Document 25 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 5
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 PETITIONER’S STATUS REPORT AND SECOND REQUEST FOR SETTING OF CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

2

advise the Court how they intend to proceed with respect to the remaining disputes between

them.

II. STATUS REPORT AND REQUEST FOR

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

This case involves claims by the owners of Eden Roc Mobilehome Park, challenging

various aspects of the City of Hayward’s mobilehome rent control ordinance. Because the

tenants at the mobilehome park could have been affected by the outcome of these proceedings,

they were named as Real Parties in Interest. 

This matter was referred to mediation, pursuant to the Court’s ADR program. As a

result of the mediation, the Petitioner was able to resolve certain disputes with many of the

tenants. On August 4, 2004, this Court issued a Consent Decree with respect to the disputes

between the Petitioner and those particular tenants. Pursuant to Paragraph M of the Consent

Decree, the Court retained jurisdiction over this matter. Paragraph M of the Consent Decree

provides as follows:

“M. CONTINUING JURISDICTION: The United

States District Court shall retain jurisdiction over the parties

until such time as the terms of this Consent Decree and the

accompanying Settlement Agreement are performed in full.”

Although the Consent Decree effectively resolved the disputes between the Petitioner

and the settling tenants, it had no impact on the disputes between the Petitioner and the nonsettling tenants, or the disputes between the Petitioner and the City of Hayward. As a result,

pursuant to paragraph I of the Consent Decree, the Petitioner remained entitled to seek relief

from the non settling parties. Paragraph I of the Consent Decree provides in relevant part as

follows:

“I. NO IMPACT ON NON-SETTLING

TENANTS: This Consent Decree shall apply only to the spaces

of the Settling Tenants, as identified on Exhibit A hereto . . .

Accordingly, [the non settling] tenants may continue to pursue

any petition they may have filed with respect to the July 1, 2002

and/or July 1, 2003 rent increases and the Parkowners may

continue to pursue any legal proceedings with respect to those

Case 3:03-cv-00891-VRW Document 25 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 5
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

Of course, these proceedings are the “writ proceedings” referred to in Paragraph I of the

Consent Decree. See Paragraph 7 of the Consent Decree for the definition of the “writ

proceedings.”

PETITIONER’S STATUS REPORT AND SECOND REQUEST FOR SETTING OF CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

3

tenants, including the writ proceedings. (Emphasis added). 1

As the Court will recall, the Petitioner and the settling tenants also entered into a

settlement agreement prior to submitting the Consent Decree to the Court for its approval.

Paragraph 16 of that settlement agreement also demonstrates that the Consent Decree does not

apply to claims against either the non-settling tenants or the City of Hayward. Paragraph 16 of

the settlement agreement provides in relevant part as follows

“16. ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS: Each

party shall bear his, her or its own attorneys fees and costs

with respect to all of the items referred to herein. However,

nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the Parkowners from

seeking their attorneys fees or costs from the City of Hayward

and/or the non-Settling Tenants.” (Emphasis added).

Following the issuance of the Consent Decree, the Petitioner and the City of Hayward

attempted to settle their disputes as well, but were unable to do so. Following the issuance of

the Consent Decree, the parties also waited to determine what impact, if any, the United States

Supreme Court’s decisions in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 544 U.S. ____, 125 S. Ct. 2074,

161 L. Ed. 2d 876 (2005) and Kelo v. City of New London 545 U.S. ____, 125 S. Ct. 2655

(2005), might have on the remaining issues in this case. 

Now that settlement efforts with the City of Hayward have failed and the United States

Supreme Court has issued its decisions in Lingle and Kelo, the Petitioner is seeking resolution

of the remaining issues in this case. Accordingly, on October 18, 2005, the Petitioner requested

this Court to set a Case Management Conference, to discuss how to proceed with respect to

the remaining issues in this case. The Court has not responded to that request for a Case

Management Conference. 

Because the Court has not responded to the Petitioner’s October 18, 2005 request for

a Case Management Conference, and because it would appear that the Clerk of the Court has

Case 3:03-cv-00891-VRW Document 25 Filed 01/23/06 Page 3 of 5
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 PETITIONER’S STATUS REPORT AND SECOND REQUEST FOR SETTING OF CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

4

mistakenly interpreted the Consent Decree to apply to all disputes between all parties, the

Petitioner again requests the Court to schedule a Case Management Conference for the first

available date on the Court’s calendar, with a joint Case Management Statement to be filed at

least 10 days before the Case Management Conference.

Dated: January 17, 2006 Respectfully submitted,

s/ Anthony C. Rodriguez

Anthony C. Rodriguez, Esq.

Attorney for Petitioner

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court hereby sets a Case Management Conference in this matter for

________________________, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. The parties shall file a joint Case

Management Conference Statement at least 10 days prior to the Case Management Conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: ___________________, 2006 ____________________________________

The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker

United States District Court Judge

Tuesday, February 7

January 23

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRANTED

Judge Vaughn R Walker

Case 3:03-cv-00891-VRW Document 25 Filed 01/23/06 Page 4 of 5
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-03- 0891 VRW ADR

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAILING

I declare I am employed in the County of Alameda, California. I am over the age of 18

years and I am not a party to the within cause. My business addressis 1425 Leimert Boulevard,

Suite 101, Oakland, California 94602.

On January 17, 2006 I served the following document:

1. PETITIONER’S STATUS REPORT AND SECOND

REQUEST FOR SETTING OF CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

on the following by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with

postage thereon fully paid, in the United States mail at Oakland, California, addressed as

follows:

Jeff Cambra, Esq.

City Attorney, City of Hayward

777 B Street

Hayward, California 94541-5007

Bruce E. Stanton, Esq.

Law Offices of Bruce E. Stanton

1530 The Alameda, Suite 115

San Jose, California 95126

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on

January 17, 2006 at Oakland, California.

s/ Anthony C. Rodriguez__________________

Anthony C. Rodriguez

Case 3:03-cv-00891-VRW Document 25 Filed 01/23/06 Page 5 of 5