Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01514/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01514-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Matthews
Plaintiff
Skywest Airlines, Inc.
Defendant

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

PAUL MATTHEWS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:07-cv-1514 OWW GSA

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 11/17/08

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 12/1/08

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 12/19/08

Settlement Conference Date:

12/2/08 10:00 Ctrm. 10

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 3/2/09 11:00 Ctrm. 3

Trial Date: 4/14/09 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-5 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

January 24, 2008.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Charles R. Brehmer, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Shaw, Terhar & LaMontagne, LLP, by Michael J. Terhar, Esq.,

appeared on behalf of Defendants. 

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. This case concerns Plaintiff Paul Matthews’ fall at the

Case 1:07-cv-01514-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/28/08 Page 1 of 13
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

Meadow’s Field Airport, Bakersfield, near the William M. Thomas

terminal on September 5, 2006, resulting in personal injuries. 

Plaintiff was a passenger on a United Express flight 6241

operated by Defendant Sky West Airlines, Inc. Plaintiff’s

Complaint was originally filed in the California Superior Court

for the County of Kern on September 11, 2007, served on September

19, 2007, and was removed by Defendant to this Court on October

17, 2007.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint sets forth two causes of action

for: (1) “general negligence;” and (2) “premises liability.” 

Both causes of action allege that Defendant “negligently owned,

and/or failed to maintain, and/or operate the aircraft stairs of

flight 6241 and/or warn Plaintiff of the dangerous condition

existing at or near the United Express/Sky West tarmac at the

William Thomas Terminal in Bakersfield, Kern County, California,

and/or failed to train and/or supervise its employees and/or

agents with regard to safe passenger deplaning.” (Plaintiff’s

Complaint, paragraph GN-1.) Plaintiff further alleges that

“while Plaintiff was descending the stairs from the subject

aircraft one of the steps moved from its proper position causing

Plaintiff to loose [sic] his balance and fall down the remaining

stairs onto the tarmac ....” (Plaintiff’s Complaint, paragraph

GN-1, p. 3.). Paragraph Prem L-2 alleges that Sky West owned,

maintained, managed and operated “the premises,” that there was a

willful or malicious failure to warn of a dangerous condition on

public property (Paragraph Prem L-3) and Prem L-4 a. alleges that

Sky West is a public entity and that the condition was created by

employees of a public entity. Plaintiff seeks recovery of

Case 1:07-cv-01514-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/28/08 Page 2 of 13
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

general and special damages. There may be a statutory Medicare

lien for Plaintiff’s medical expenses.

3. On October 18, 2007, Defendant Sky West Airlines, Inc.

answered Plaintiff’s complaint denying it was at fault and

asserting certain affirmative defenses.

4. The principal factual issue in this case is the

location of Plaintiff’s fall, i.e., whether Plaintiff fell from

the stairs, as Plaintiff contends, or whether he was already off

the stairs and standing on the tarmac when he fell, as is

contended by Defendant. Secondary liability issues derive from

that primary issue. If Plaintiff fell from the aircraft stairs,

there are issues as to whether the aircraft stairs were

improperly maintained, whether Defendant was a proximate cause of

the accident or whether Plaintiff was the sole cause of his

accident. There are liability issues of contributory negligence,

and comparative fault. Defendant also alleges that this action

is barred by the doctrine of federal preemption as recently

articulated by the Ninth Circuit in Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines

(9th Cir. 2007) U.S. App. LEXIS 23252.

5. The damages issues concern the nature and extent of the

Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages, including special and

general damages.

6. Defendant denies any liability for the accident or

Plaintiff’s claimed damages, and specifically denies that it was

negligent in its maintenance or operation of the aircraft and/or

aircraft stairs. Defendant denies that Plaintiff fell from the

aircraft stairs and contends that Plaintiff fell after descending

the stairs and while standing on the tarmac. Defendant has

Case 1:07-cv-01514-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/28/08 Page 3 of 13
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

asserted various defenses in its answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

and, among other things, contends that Plaintiff’s

negligence/health caused the accident. Defendant may also

contend that a portion of Plaintiff’s care and treatment is not

reasonably related to the accident.

7. Defendant contends that the tarmac area is owned,

maintained and controlled by the County of Kern, which is not a

party to this case, and as a public entity cannot now be sued by

Plaintiff. Defendant further contends that the maintenance and

operation of commercial air carriers is regulated by the FAA and

that all or some of Plaintiff’s claims may be barred by the

doctrine of federal preemption. 

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. No amendments are proposed or anticipated at this time.

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Plaintiff was a passenger on Defendant’s flight on

the date of the accident. 

2. Plaintiff fell.

3. Plaintiff sustained injuries in his fall which

consisted of a fractured left femur.

4. Plaintiff had surgery and other medical treatment

at Mercy Hospital for injuries sustained in the accident. 

5. Plaintiff is a resident citizen of the State of

California and the event occurred in the Eastern District of

California, Fresno Division. 

6. Defendant Sky West Airlines is a Utah corporation

Case 1:07-cv-01514-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/28/08 Page 4 of 13
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

with its principal place of business in St. George, Utah.

B. Contested Facts.

1. Whether Defendant is a public entity.

2. Whether Defendant was in possession, custody or

control of the tarmac.

3. The location and manner of Plaintiff’s fall.

4. The cause of Plaintiff’s fall. 

5. The condition of the aircraft stairs and whether

their condition was a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s accident.

6. The condition of the tarmac and whether its

condition was a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s accident.

7. Whether there was a failure to warn Plaintiff

which was a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s accident.

8. Whether there was a failure to supervise Plaintiff

which was a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s accident. 

9. Whether Plaintiff was the sole cause of his

accident due to his age, pre-existing medical conditions,

inattentiveness, etc.

10. The nature and extent of Plaintiff’s injuries.

11. The reasonable and necessary medical expenses

related thereto.

12. Who paid for some or all of the medical expenses

and whether Medicare or any other entity has a lien for

Plaintiff’s claimed medical expenses. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

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

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

Case 1:07-cv-01514-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/28/08 Page 5 of 13
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

3. In this diversity action, the parties agree that

the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule

of decision. 

B. Contested. 

1. All remaining legal issues are contested. 

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’ initial disclosures have already been

accomplished. 

2. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before November 17, 2008.

3. Plaintiff is directed to disclose all expert witnesses,

in writing, on or before August 22, 2008. Defendant will

disclose experts on or before September 19, 2008. Any rebuttal

or supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or before

October 17, 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

Case 1:07-cv-01514-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/28/08 Page 6 of 13
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

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.

4. The parties shall complete non-expert discovery by July

18, 2008. By “completed,” the parties mean that all written

discovery shall have been propounded, answered, and complied

with, and that all depositions shall have been noticed and taken

and completed, by the proposed non-expert discovery cut-off date

and expert discovery cut-off date, respectively. The parties

agree and stipulate that any party who has propounded or noticed

non-expert or expert discovery may, upon the request of another

party, grant, at the propounding or noticing party’s sole

discretion, an extension of time to comply with such discovery or

grant an extension of time for the taking of a noticed deposition

beyond the agreed-upon cut-off dates for non-expert and/or expert

discovery, with the limitation that no such extension shall be

granted beyond the final discovery cut-off date without prior

leave of the Court. Furthermore, any party who has properly

served a timely notice of a non-expert or expert deposition at

which the named deponent did not appear may re-notice such

deposition for a date before the final discovery cut-off date. 

Furthermore, any party may file and serve a motion to compel

further discovery after the expiration of the non-expert

discovery cut-off date or the expiration of the expert discovery

cut-off date, provided such a motion to compel is filed and

Case 1:07-cv-01514-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/28/08 Page 7 of 13
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

served before the final discovery cut-off date. The final

discovery cut-off date for all discovery shall be October 17,

2008. The parties hereby agree and stipulate that the final

discovery cut-off date of October 17, 2008, shall require that

all discovery shall have been served and answered by the final

discovery cut-off date, and that all noticed depositions shall

have been taken before that final discovery cut-off date, and

that any motion to compel further discovery must be filed and

served before that cut-off date. However, a hearing on any

motion to compel that is timely filed and served before the final

discovery cut-off date may be heard after the cut-off date; and

if a motion to compel is granted, the party compelled to respond

or comply shall answer or comply with discovery or appear at

deposition even after the final discovery cut-off date. 

5. Pursuant to FRCP 26(f)(3), no party has any comment on

changes to discovery or whether limitations on discovery should

be imposed. 

6. Pursuant to FRCP 26(f)(4), no party proposes any other

orders that should be entered by the Court under FRCP rules 26(c)

or 16(b) or (c).

7. As noted, the parties propose that Plaintiff’s

expert(s) will make the disclosures required by FRCP 26(a)(2) by

August 22, 2008, and Defendant’s expert(s) will make disclosures

by September 19, 2008. Expert witness depositions are to be

completed prior to the final discovery cut-off subject to the

discovery exceptions set forth above. 

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

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Case 1:07-cv-01514-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/28/08 Page 8 of 13
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

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 December 1, 2008,

and heard on January 9, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate

Judge Gary S. Austin in Courtroom 10. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

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 December 19, 2008, and will be heard on

January 26, 2009, 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. March 2, 2009, 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

Case 1:07-cv-01514-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/28/08 Page 9 of 13
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

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

compliance with those rules.

XII. Trial Date.

1. April 14, 2009, 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. 5 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

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

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for December 2,

2008, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10 before the Honorable Gary S.

Austin, United States Magistrate Judge. 

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

Case 1:07-cv-01514-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/28/08 Page 10 of 13
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

11

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

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

Case 1:07-cv-01514-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/28/08 Page 11 of 13
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

12

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. The parties do not suggest bifurcation and there is

likely to be an overlap between the injury evidence and accident

reconstruction. 

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are no related matters.

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

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

Case 1:07-cv-01514-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/28/08 Page 12 of 13
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

13

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: January 25, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01514-OWW -GSA Document 15 Filed 01/28/08 Page 13 of 13