Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00216/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00216-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Merced
Defendant
L. McAbee
Defendant
Andrew Moua
Plaintiff
Unknown Merced Police Officers
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

ANDREW MOUA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

L. McABEE; CITY OF MERCED; and

UNKNOWN MERCED POLICE OFFICERS

DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv-0216 OWW SMS

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 6/29/07

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 7/16/07

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 7/30/07

Settlement Conference Date:

7/10/07 10:00 Ctrm. 7

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 10/29/07 11:00 Ctrm.

3

Trial Date: 12/4/07 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-6 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

August 18, 2006.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

James Holland, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Low, Ball & Lynch by Dale L. Allen, Esq., appeared on behalf

of Defendants. 

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. Plaintiff Andrew Moua is the brother of Chou Moua. Mr.

Case 1:06-cv-00216-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 08/21/06 Page 1 of 12
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

Chou Moua lived with his brother, Andrew, as well as other family

members. Mr. Chou Moua was on probation and subject to a

probationary search condition. Law enforcement officers,

including officers of the Merced Police Department, conducted a

probationary search on the residence of Mr. Chou Moua. During

the course of the search, officers entered the bedroom of Mr.

Andrew Moua and discovered an alleged weapon that the officers

believed was in violation of California Penal Code Section 12021.

2. Mr. Andrew Moua was placed under arrest and transported

and booked for the alleged violation. 

3. On or about February 24, 2005, individual DefendantOfficers of the Defendant City of Merced searched the home in

which Plaintiff resided with his family and girlfriend, because

Plaintiff’s brother was on probation at the time. No search

warrant governed this search.

4. The bedroom in which Plaintiff and his girlfriend

resided in the family home was sufficiently separate, closed off

from, and/or locked separate from the remainder of the home that

Plaintiff and his girlfriend possessed a reasonable expectation

of privacy in that room. Although Defendant officers were

informed that Plaintiff’s room was locked separate from the

remainder of the home, and that Plaintiff resided and was

sleeping there and his girlfriend was staying there, Defendants

entered said room without legal justification.

5. Upon entering Plaintiff’s room, Defendants observed

that Plaintiff was Asian and that his girlfriend was Caucasian. 

Thereupon, Defendants searched Plaintiff’s room, over his and his

girlfriend’s objection, in an unreasonable manner. Defendants

Case 1:06-cv-00216-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 08/21/06 Page 2 of 12
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

confiscated personal property belonging to Plaintiff, from his

room, and arrested and incarcerated Plaintiff on false charges,

causing Plaintiff to incur about $1,000 in bail bond, and other

expenses.

6. No criminal charges were ever formally filed against

Plaintiff on the basis of Defendant’s arrest.

7. Multiple requests for the law enforcement report

documenting the Defendants’ search and presumably containing the

names of the involved officers, were refused. It is believed

that in retaliation for requesting the report, Defendants City of

Merced and unknown officers sought to have the District

Attorney’s Office reverse its earlier decision not to file or

pursue criminal charges against Plaintiff, by filing and pursuing

criminal charges against Plaintiff.

8. Plaintiff alleges that the foregoing actions of

Defendants constituted violations of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment

rights:

-to be free from warrantless searches of areas of

Plaintiff’s residence in which Plaintiff had a reasonable

expectation of privacy;

-to be free from unreasonable detention and from excessive

exertion of force under color of state law and without probable

cause or legal justification; and 

-to be free from false arrest and consequent imprisonment

under color of state law and without probable cause or legal

justification.

9. Plaintiff further alleges these foregoing actions of

the Defendants were occasioned as a result of Defendant offices’

Case 1:06-cv-00216-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 08/21/06 Page 3 of 12
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

racial or ethnic discrimination against Plaintiff, in violation

of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights, and that these

actions also violated his First Amendment rights to association

regardless of his, or his girlfriend’s, race or ethnicity.

10. Plaintiff includes allegations that Defendant City is

liable under Monell, for having condoned, allowed, and/or tacitly

encouraged by way of neglecting duties to reasonably educate,

train, direct, supervise, discipline or control, the

discriminatory actions that are alleged to have been perpetrated

by Defendant individual officers.

Second Court - Common Law Torts

11. Plaintiff alleges that the actions of individual

Defendants stated in Count One also constitute the common law

torts of trespass, trespass to chattel and conversion, violation

of privacy, false arrest, false imprisonment, harassment, and

infliction of emotional distress.

Third Count - California Statutory Actions

12. Plaintiff alleges that the actions of individual

Defendants stated in Count One also constitute violations of the

California Constitution (Art. 1, § 2, free speech rights; Art. I

§ 13, probable cause for arrest), and Cal. Civil Code § 52.1 (the

‘Bane Act,’ which prohibits any person from interfering or

attempting to interfere by threats, intimidation or coercion,

with the free exercise of rights secured by the Constitution or

laws of the United States or of California. The Bane Act

provides remedies including injunctive relief, special, general

and exemplary damages, $25,000 civil penalties, and attorney’s

fees.

Case 1:06-cv-00216-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 08/21/06 Page 4 of 12
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

13. Defendants claim that the door into Andrew Moua’s room

was open, and that Chou Moua had access to this room. Defendants

claim that the weapons seized were in plain view and that Andrew

Moua acknowledged the weapons belonged to him. Defendants claim

that all actions taken during the arrest of Mr. Moua were calm

and deliberate and the force used was appropriate for the arrest.

14. Plaintiff claims that a warrantless and legally

unjustified entry was made; over objection, and search was

conducted of his room, that he was unreasonably detained and

unlawfully arrested and that the detention and arrest were

discriminatory in nature under the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff further

asserts that the actions of the officers also constitute state

and common law violations, including trespass, trespass to

chattel and conversion, violation of privacy, false arrest, false

imprisonment, harassment, infliction of emotional distress, and

violation of the Bane Act (Cal. Civil Code 52.1), which prohibits

interference by threats, intimidation or coercion, with the free

exercise of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the

United States or California. Plaintiff also asserts that

Defendant City of Merced improperly rebuffed early, pre-filing

efforts to secure a copy of the arrest/incident report, and

retaliated against these efforts by requesting re-review by the

District Attorney’s Office.

15. Defendants alleged that the arrest was based upon

probable cause. Defendants deny that the arrest was racially

motivated and that the items confiscated were illegal under the

laws of the State of California.

Case 1:06-cv-00216-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 08/21/06 Page 5 of 12
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

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. Plaintiff contemplates the likelihood that leave to

amend will be sought to join additional officers. The parties

agree that either a stipulation or motion to amend shall be filed

within sixty (60) days on or before October 20, 2006. 

2. The parties do request participation in the Early

Neutral Evaluation Program and that will be assigned by the

Courtroom Deputy Clerk. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. To be supplied.

B. Contested Facts.

1. All other facts are contested.

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

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

3. As to supplemental claims, the parties agree that

the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule

of decision. 

B. Contested. 

1. All other legal issues are disputed.

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

Case 1:06-cv-00216-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 08/21/06 Page 6 of 12
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

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 agree to the following discovery plan

pending Plaintiff’s decision on additional parties:

a. Ten depositions per side. This subject to

amendment pending the identification and inclusion of new

parties;

b. Thirty-five written interrogatories per side;

c. thirty-five document demands per side;

d. Thirty-five request for admissions per side;

2. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before June 29, 2007.

3. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before April 2, 2007. Any

supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or before May 1,

2007. 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

Case 1:06-cv-00216-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 08/21/06 Page 7 of 12
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

disclosed pursuant to this order.

4. 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 July 16, 2007, and

heard on August 17, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge

Sandra M. Snyder in Courtroom 7. 

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 July 30, 2007, and will be heard on September

10, 2007, 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. October 29, 2007, 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). 

Case 1:06-cv-00216-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 08/21/06 Page 8 of 12
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

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. December 4, 2007, 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.

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 July 10, 2007,

at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7 before the Honorable Sandra M.

Snyder, 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

Case 1:06-cv-00216-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 08/21/06 Page 9 of 12
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

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

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.

Case 1:06-cv-00216-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 08/21/06 Page 10 of 12
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

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

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

Case 1:06-cv-00216-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 08/21/06 Page 11 of 12
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

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: August 18, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00216-OWW -SMS Document 12 Filed 08/21/06 Page 12 of 12