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

David R. Schwartz - #009264

das@udallshumway.com

Attorney for Defendants Maricopa County Community

College District, Maricopa Skill Center and Lisa Hemming

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Schaun Owens,

Plaintiff,

v.

Maricopa County Community College 

District, Maricopa Skill Center, and Lisa 

Hemming, 

Defendants.

NO. CV-15-01769-PHX-SPL

RULE 26(f) CASE MANAGEMENT 

REPORT

Pursuant to the Order Setting Rule 16 Case Management Conference (Dkt 6), 

Defendants Maricopa County Community College District, Maricopa Skill Center, and Lisa 

Hemming submit this Rule 26(f) Case Management Report and the Proposed Rule 16 Case 

Management Order.

1. Attendance: Plaintiff and Defense counsel David R. Schwartz participated in 

the preparation of this joint submittal.

2. Service: All parties to this action have been served.

3. Nature of Case:

1138 NORTH ALMA SCHOOL ROAD, SUITE 101

MESA, ARIZONA 85201

Telephone: 480.461.5300 | Fax: 480.833.9392

Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 15 Filed 01/04/16 Page 1 of 6
2

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

This is a case alleging intentional racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as 

well as a claim alleging under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation under color of state law of 

the constitutional right of equal protection and unlawful retaliation for protected speech by 

an employee under the First Amendment. Plaintiff Owens was formerly an employee who 

has sued Defendants Maricopa County Community College District (“District”), the former 

employer, Maricopa Skill Center, a division of a community college operated by the 

District, and Lisa Hemming, the former supervisor of Plaintiff. The alleged discrimination 

and retaliation occurred from August 2013 until Plaintiff’s termination from her 

probationary position as an Associate Cosmetology instructor at the Maricopa Skill Center’s 

Northwest campus. Defendants deny they committed any unlawful discrimination based 

upon race or retaliated for any protected activity. Defendants contend that Plaintiff was 

treated appropriately and there was no hostile work environment. Defendant also contends 

that Plaintiff’s employment was terminated for lawful performance related concerns. 

The principal factual and legal issues in dispute based upon the Complaint and the 

Answer include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Whether or not in violation of § 1981 and equal protection under § 1983 

Plaintiff’s probationary employment was terminated by the District due to her race?

2. Whether or not, and to what extent, in violation of § 1981 and equal protection 

under § 1983, from August 2013 until her termination Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile 

work environment by Defendant Hemming at the Northwest campus due to Plaintiff’s race?

3. Whether or not, and to what extent, any speech of the Plaintiff was that of a 

private citizen on matters of public concern protected activity under the First Amendment? 

Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 15 Filed 01/04/16 Page 2 of 6
3

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. Whether or not in violation of § 1983Plaintiff’s employment was terminated 

by the District in retaliation for reports or statements protected by the First Amendment on 

matters of public concern?

5. Whether or not, and to what extent, in violation of § 1983 from August 2013 

until her termination Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment by Defendant 

Hemming at the Northwest campus in retaliation for Plaintiff’s First Amendment protected

speech? 

6. Whether or not Plaintiff would have been terminated or other actions taken 

even without consideration of race or any protected First Amendment activity?

7. What role, if any, did Defendant Hemming play in the District’s decision to 

terminate Plaintiff’s employment?

8. Whether or not Defendant Hemming’s actions were protected by qualified 

immunity?

9. Whether or not the District is liable for the actions of its employees regarding 

Plaintiff? Was any alleged discrimination or retaliation the result of a custom, practice or 

policy established by the District and its final policymakers which would render it liable?

10. Whether or not the District utilized reasonable care in preventing and 

correcting promptly any actual discrimination or unlawful retaliation known to it and 

whether Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of such opportunity to prevent or 

minimize any alleged discrimination or retaliation?

11. Whether or not, and to what extent, Plaintiff suffered any damages as a result 

of any alleged intentional discrimination or unlawful retaliation?

Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 15 Filed 01/04/16 Page 3 of 6
4

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. Whether or not, and to what extent, Plaintiff failed to reasonably mitigate her 

damages?

13. Whether or not, and to what extent, any damages are limited under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1981a?

14. Whether or not, and to what extent, any claims by Plaintiff are barred under 

the applicable two year statute of limitations?

15. Whether the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 

or should be dismissed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(c)?

4. Jurisdiction: This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 

1331 as Plaintiff has asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983.

5. Additions and Amendments: Plaintiff does not expect to add additional 

parties to the case. The parties agree that any amendments to the pleadings can and should 

be made within 60 days from January 11, 2016.

6. Related Cases: None.

7. Initial Disclosures: The parties will exchange initial disclosures pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) on or before January 11, 2016.

8. Discovery Limitations: The parties are not at this time suggesting any 

changes in the limits on discovery imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff believes there should be no limitation on the number of requests to produce 

documents and requests for admissions. Defendants believe the number should be limited to 

25 for each of those.

Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 15 Filed 01/04/16 Page 4 of 6
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

9. Electronic Information: The parties do not at this time anticipate any issues 

relating to disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information.

10. Request for Jury Trial: Both parties have requested a jury trial and these 

requests are not contested.

11. Trial: Defendants anticipate that they will file a dispositive motion in this 

case by the proposed deadline of October 28, 2016. If no dispositive motion is filed, the 

parties currently estimate the case will be ready for trial by November 14, 2016 and that the 

trial may take 11 to 12 days. The parties do not have any current joint suggestions for 

shortening the trial but will consider possible methods as the case progresses.

12. Expedited Trial Alternative: Plaintiff certifies she has considered the 

expedited trial alternative set forth in this Court’s Order. Defense counsel certifies that he 

has discussed with Defendants the expedited trial alternative set forth in this Court’s Order. 

The parties are not jointly agreeing to the expedited trial alternative set forth in this Court’s 

Order. 

13. Consent to Magistrate Judge: The parties are not jointly agreeing to a 

transfer of this case to a Magistrate Judge.

14. Settlement: The prospects for settlement at this time do not appear good. 

The parties are not at this time jointly requesting referral to a United State Magistrate Judge 

for the purpose of holding a settlement conference. The parties do not believe at this time 

that the case is suitable for an alternative method of dispute resolution.

15. Modified Procedures: None are suggested at this time.

16. Additional Matters: None are suggested at this time.

Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 15 Filed 01/04/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Plaintiff has reviewed this Rule 26(f) Case Management Report and the Proposed 

Rule 16 Case Management Order and has authorized her e-signature on this pleading and 

has approved the form of the proposed order being submitted.

DATED: January 4, 2016.

UDALL SHUMWAY PLC

/s/ David R. Schwartz

David R. Schwartz

1138 North Alma School Road

Suite 101

Mesa, AZ 85201

Attorneys for Defendants 

/s/ David R. Schwartz for Shaun Owens

Schaun Owens

Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 4, 2016, I electronically filed the attached document 

using ECF for filing and transmitted the document as follows:

By e-mail and mail to:

Schaun Owens

11342 W. Buchanan Street

Avondale, AZ 85323

Plaintiff

/s/ Kimberly Kershner

Kimberly Kershner

4483657.4

109883-5

Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 15 Filed 01/04/16 Page 6 of 6