Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190905_0012291.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-11-17 05:21:32
Document Index: 452878197

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 52', '§ 1431', '§ 47', '§ 815']

FindACase™ | Ramos v. Alvarez
Ramos v. Alvarez
LUIS RAMOS; GUDELIA SANDOVAL; ALFONSO PADRON; and ELIDA PADRON, Plaintiffs,
GERARDO ALVAREZ, in his official and individual capacities; and PARLIER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants. No. Name Subject of Testimony Estimated Time No. Name Subject of Testimony Estimated Time No. Name Subject of Testimony Estimated Time No. Name Subject of Testimony Estimated Time EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION Exh. No. Date Document Exh. No. Date Document Exh. No. Date Document
On August 5, 2019, the court conducted a final pretrial conference. Attorney Alexia Kirkland appeared as counsel for plaintiffs Luis Ramos and Gudelia Sandoval. Plaintiffs Elida Padron and Alfonso Padron appeared on their own behalves. Attorney Mart Oller appeared as counsel for defendants Parlier Unified School District (“PUSD”) and Gerardo Alvarez. Having considered defendants' objections, the court issues this final pretrial order.
Plaintiffs bring this action under state and federal law alleging that defendant Alvarez, while acting as the PUSD Superintendent, solicited political campaign contributions in exchange for terms of employment, used PUSD funds to support certain political candidates, and took adverse employment actions against plaintiffs based on their political affiliations. Plaintiffs further allege that PUSD approved, through its school board, defendant Alvarez's decisions without affording plaintiffs due process.
Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367. Jurisdiction is not contested.
Both parties have demanded a jury trial. The jury will consist of eight jurors.
1. Defendants did not have an employment relationship with Alfonso Padron at all relevant times with respect to the matters alleged in the complaint, and thus, Alfonso Padron was not subjected to an adverse employment action by defendants.
2. The non-renewal of Elida Padron's employment contract was not substantially motivated by her protected First Amendment conduct.
3. Gudelia Sandoval was an employee of defendant PUSD.
4. Luis Ramos was employed with the Community Union Parenting Center, which provided services for parents at the Parent Resource Center at PUSD.
IV. DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES
1. Whether defendants violated any of plaintiffs' rights under the law in relation to the claims pled.
The parties have not yet filed motions in limine. The court does not encourage the filing of motions in limine unless they are addressed to issues that can realistically be resolved by the court prior to trial and without reference to the other evidence which will be introduced by the parties at trial. Any motions in limine the parties elect to file shall be filed no later than 21 days before trial. Opposition shall be filed no later than 14 days before trial and any replies shall be filed no later than 10 days before trial. Upon receipt of any opposition briefs, the court will notify the parties if it will hear argument on any motions in limine prior to the first day of trial.
Plaintiffs seek general and special damages against defendant PUSD and defendant Alvarez and punitive damages against defendant Alvarez in his individual capacity.
The claims and defenses arise under both federal and state law. The first cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is brought by all plaintiffs against both defendants. The second cause of action for defamation is brought by plaintiffs Gudelia Sandoval and Luis Ramos against both defendants. The third cause of action for invasion of privacy/false light is brought by plaintiffs Gudelia Sandoval and Luis Ramos against both defendants. The fourth cause of action for invasion of privacy (publication of private facts) is brought by plaintiffs Gudelia Sandoval and Luis Ramos against both defendants. The fifth cause of action for misrepresentation is brought by plaintiffs Alfonso Padron and Elida Padron against defendant Alvarez. The sixth cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage is brought by plaintiffs Alfonso Padron and Elida Padron against both defendants. The seventh cause of action for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage is brought by plaintiffs Alfonso Padron and Elida Padron against both defendants. The eighth cause of action for First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is brought by plaintiffs Gudelia Sandoval and Luis Ramos against defendant Alvarez. The ninth cause of action for violation of procedural due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is brought by plaintiff Gudelia Sandoval against defendant Alvarez. The tenth cause of action under the Bane Act is brought by all plaintiffs against both defendants.
1. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
2. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim for defamation.
3. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim for invasion of privacy/false light.
4. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim for invasion of privacy (publication of private facts).
5. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim for misrepresentation.
6. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.
7. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.
8. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a First Amendment claim alleging unlawful retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
9. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
10. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in a claim under the Bane Act, California Civil Code § 52.1.
11. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in an affirmative defense for comparative fault.
12. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in an affirmative defense for failure to mitigate damages.
13. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in an affirmative defense for apportionment of damages and/or fault pursuant to California Civil Code § 1431.2.
14. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in an affirmative defense asserting privileges set forth in California Civil Code § 47(a)-(e).
15. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in an affirmative defense asserting immunity under California Government Code §§ 815(b), 815.2(b), 815.3, 818, 818.2, 818.8, 820(b), 820.4, 820.6, 820.8, 820.9, 821, 821.6, or 822.2.16.
16. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in an affirmative defense for unclean hands.
17. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in an affirmative defense based on the exclusive workers' compensation remedy.
18. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in an affirmative defense asserting privilege and immunity based on the discharge of a duty by a public entity and a public employee.
19. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in an affirmative defense for truth.
20. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in an affirmative defense based on the doctrine of after acquired evidence.
21. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in an affirmative defense asserting a privilege to publish statements without malice pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
22. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in an affirmative defense for estoppel.
23. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in an affirmative defense that each cause of action fails to state a claim.
24. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in an affirmative defense asserting that defendants did not discriminate against plaintiffs and plaintiffs' engagement in protected activities was not a substantial or motivating factor in defendants' actions.
25. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in an affirmative defense asserting that defendant Parlier Unified School District cannot be held liable for interference with contracts or economic relationships to which it is a party.
26. The elements of, standards for, and burden of proof in an affirmative defense asserting that any acts of defendants affecting the terms and/or conditions of plaintiffs' employment was done in good faith and motivated by legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
Trial briefs addressing the points of law implicated by these remaining claims shall be filed with this court no later than 7 days before trial in accordance with Local Rule 285.[1]
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Plaintiff Gudelia Sandoval&#39;s witnesses shall be those listed in Attachment A; plaintiff Luis Ramos&#39; witnesses shall be those listed in Attachment B; plaintiff Alfonso Padron&#39;s witnesses shall be those listed in Attachment C; and plaintiff Elida Padron&#39;s witnesses shall be those listed in Attachment D. Defendants' witnesses ...