Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00670/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00670-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J.C. Penney Properties, Inc.
Cross Claimant
Johnson Controls, Inc.
Cross Defendant
Jess Sanchez
Plaintiff
Sara Sanchez
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARA SANCHEZ, an individual, and

JESS SANCHEZ, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

J.C. PENNEY PROPERTIES, INC.,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cv-0670 OWW WMW 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 1/7/08

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 1/11/08

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 2/7/08

Settlement Conference Date:

3/18/08 10:00 Ctrm. 8

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 4/21/08 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 6/3/08 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-6 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

September 5, 2007.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Law Offices of Ken Fitzgerald by Ken Fitzgerald, Esq.,

appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs.

McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP by Kirsten

K. Corey, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant. 

///

Case 1:07-cv-00670-OWW -GSA Document 20 Filed 09/11/07 Page 1 of 10
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

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. Plaintiff, Sara Sanchez, alleges that she was injured

when she tripped and fell on cracked tile at the JC Penney store

at Fashion Fair Mall at Fresno, California, within the Eastern

District of California. She alleges that Defendant negligently

allowed the dangerous condition of the tile to exist on the

floor, causing her to fall. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

knew or should have known of the dangerous condition, and should

have fixed the condition before Plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff

further alleges that Defendants did know of the disrepair of the

tile before Plaintiff fell, and engaged in willful and conscious

disregard for the safety of others, giving rise to punitive

damages under Civil Code Section 3294. Plaintiff, Jess Sanchez,

alleges that he is the husband of Plaintiff Sara Sanchez, and

that he has suffered emotional distress and a loss of consortium

due to the injuries to Plaintiff, Sara Sanchez. Sara Sanchez’s

alleged injuries involve physical injuries due to her fall, as

well as a prolonged hospital stay, including periods of time she

was in a coma, due to alleged complications caused by infections

to pre-existing medical conditions. General damages and special

damages constituting medical expenses are alleged as well as the

punitive damages. 

2. Defendants deny that they knew or should have known of

the cracked tile where Plaintiff allegedly fell. Defendants

further deny that Plaintiff fell, or tripped, over the allegedly

cracked tile. Defendants deny that the cracked tile itself is a

dangerous condition, noting the doctrine of trivial defect and

further note that any and all tile conditions were open and

Case 1:07-cv-00670-OWW -GSA Document 20 Filed 09/11/07 Page 2 of 10
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

obvious. Defendants deny causation for any complicating factors,

including the prolonged hospital stay and coma, which appear to

be related to a pre-existing illness unrelated to the fall. 

Defendants further assert that this case is entirely

inappropriate for the application of punitive damages.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties agree Defendant shall have through and

including October 5, 2007, to join any potential indemnitors,

including Johnson Controls, Inc., who contracted with Defendant

to provide services at the store in question. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. That Plaintiff Sara Sanchez fell in the JC Penney

store at Fashion Fair Mall on or about March 4, 2007.

2. That Fashion Fair Mall is located at 555 East Shaw

Avenue, Fresno, California.

3. That Jess Sanchez was with Sara Sanchez when she

fell.

4. Plaintiffs Sara Sanchez and Jess Sanchez,

individuals, are residents of the State of California.

5. JC Penney Properties, Inc., is a Delaware

corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. 

B. Contested Facts.

1. That Plaintiff, Sara Sanchez, tripped over a crack

or defect in the tile floor. 

2. That a dangerous condition to the tile existed

before or after Plaintiff, Sara Sanchez, fell.

Case 1:07-cv-00670-OWW -GSA Document 20 Filed 09/11/07 Page 3 of 10
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

3. That Defendant had notice of any dangerous

conditions.

4. That Plaintiff’s injuries are related to, or

caused by, Plaintiff’s fall.

5. All issues of liability, causation and damages,

factual and legal, as related to this incident.

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1392(b).

3. The parties agree that the substantive law of the

State of California provides the rule of decision in this

diversity action. 

B. Contested. 

1. Whether there is any negligence or liability of

any kind on the part of Defendant.

2. Whether there is any intentional or reckless

conduct giving rise to any form of punitive damages against

Defendant.

3. Whether any or all of Plaintiff’s injuries were

caused by Defendant, and/or caused at all by Plaintiff’s fall,

under the legal doctrine of causation.

4. Whether Plaintiff has a pre-existing condition

which has caused her alleged damages.

5. The reasonableness and necessity, as well as

reasonable cost, of all the Plaintiffs’ alleged damages and

injuries, including reductions to amounts paid for medical

billings.

Case 1:07-cv-00670-OWW -GSA Document 20 Filed 09/11/07 Page 4 of 10
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

6. Whether there was any negligent infliction of

emotional distress and/or whether there is an appropriate loss of

consortium claim.

7. Whether any alleged defect existed, and whether

there was notice of the same to Defendants (by law).

8. Whether the alleged tile conditions amount to a

trivial defect.

9. Whether the alleged defects in the tile were open

and obvious.

10. Comparative fault on the part of Plaintiff, Sara

Sanchez, or contributory negligence on the part of Jess Sanchez.

11. Potential contributory negligence and indemnity,

contribution and apportionment of fault, as well as contractual

and express indemnity, on the part of other third parties,

including but not limited to Johnson Controls, Inc.

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties shall make their initial disclosures under

Case 1:07-cv-00670-OWW -GSA Document 20 Filed 09/11/07 Page 5 of 10
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

Rule 26(a) on or before September 10, 2007. 

2. There are no changes, limitations or expansions to the

discovery limits imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on or

before January 7, 2008.

4. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before January 10, 2008. Any

rebuttal or supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or

before February 11, 2008. The parties will comply with the

provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) regarding

their expert designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding,

the written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F.

R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all

information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in

compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the

testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are

not disclosed pursuant to this order.

5. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before January 11, 2008,

and heard on February 15, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate

Judge William M. Wunderlich in Courtroom 8. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Case 1:07-cv-00670-OWW -GSA Document 20 Filed 09/11/07 Page 6 of 10
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

7

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than February 7, 2008, and will be heard on March

10, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. In

scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule

230. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. April 21, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th

Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States

District Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XII. Trial Date.

1. June 3, 2008, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom

3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge. 

2. This is a jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 6 days.

Case 1:07-cv-00670-OWW -GSA Document 20 Filed 09/11/07 Page 7 of 10
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

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. As to settlement, the parties have agreed to mediate

before a local private mediator. A court annexed settlement

conference is set for March 18, 2008, before Magistrate Judge

William M. Wunderlich at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

Case 1:07-cv-00670-OWW -GSA Document 20 Filed 09/11/07 Page 8 of 10
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

9

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. None. 

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are no related matters.

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Case 1:07-cv-00670-OWW -GSA Document 20 Filed 09/11/07 Page 9 of 10
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

10

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00670-OWW -GSA Document 20 Filed 09/11/07 Page 10 of 10