arrow left
arrow right
  • MOHAMMAD HABIB VS. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL WRONGFUL DISCHARGE document preview
  • MOHAMMAD HABIB VS. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL WRONGFUL DISCHARGE document preview
  • MOHAMMAD HABIB VS. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL WRONGFUL DISCHARGE document preview
  • MOHAMMAD HABIB VS. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL WRONGFUL DISCHARGE document preview
  • MOHAMMAD HABIB VS. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL WRONGFUL DISCHARGE document preview
  • MOHAMMAD HABIB VS. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL WRONGFUL DISCHARGE document preview
  • MOHAMMAD HABIB VS. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL WRONGFUL DISCHARGE document preview
  • MOHAMMAD HABIB VS. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL WRONGFUL DISCHARGE document preview
						
                                

Preview

w aD DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669 City Attorney KATHARINE HOBIN PORTER, State Bar #173180 Chief Labor Attorney JENICA D. MALDONADO, State Bar #266982 ERIN KUKA,, State Bar #275042 Deputy City Attorneys Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street, Fifth Floor San Francisco, California 94102-5408 Telephone: (415) 554-4229 Facsimile: (415) 554-4248 E-Mail: jenica.maldonado@sfcityatty.org erin.kuka@sfcityatty.org Attorneys for Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 01/28/2019 Clerk of the Court BY:MARIA OLOPERNES Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION MOHAMMAD HABIB, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, and DOES | through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. CGC 18-569287 DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO TRIAL DATE Hearing Date: January 30, 2019 Hearing Judge: Hon. Garrett L. Wong Time: 9:30 am Place: Dept. 206 Date Action Filed: Trial Date: August 29, 2018 August 5, 2019 NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO TRIAL DATE; CGC 18-569287 nsMabor\li2018\190329\01333709.doex,w aD Pursuant to this Court’s Case Management Order dated January 16, 2019, Defendant City and County of San Francisco (“Defendant”) respectfully objects to the trial date of August 5, 2019, and requests that the court set trial for July 6, 2020. This represents an 11-month continuance, good cause for which is shown by the facts and circumstances of this particular case. The currently-set trial date does not provide the parties with sufficient time to complete discovery, engage in meaningful settlement negotiations, meet pretrial motion deadlines, and prepare for trial. Defendant’s objection is based on the following facts. First, Defendant’s lead counsel is taking a medical leave, beginning Monday, February 4, and currently scheduled to go through July 22, 2019. Then, upon return to the office, lead counsel will be in a jury trial beginning October 7, 2019. Following that trial, lead counsel will be in another jury trial beginning March 30, 2020. Those cases are unlikely to resolve short of trial, and cannot be reassigned, due to the cases’ complexity and lead counsel’s intimate understanding of them. Second, the City is about to enter into labor negotiations with nearly all 35,000 of its employees, and back-up counsel for this case will be one of the three attorneys assigned to manage litigation while the other attorneys on the labor team are bargaining. Negotiations with labor unions begin in February with weekly bargaining sessions. That continues into March, when the parties are required by law to mediate, and then arbitrate, their differences. Arbitrations often stretch into the first week of May. Additionally, back-up counsel will be out of the country on a longtime prescheduled vacation from March 27 to April 20, 2019. Third, the discovery and motion process in this case will be more complex than in most typical employment cases. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that the actions of over 20 police officers are germane to his FEHA claims. These officers all have statutory privacy protections unique under the law. The discovery process will no doubt require significant Pitchess motion practice, which will delay the process. Of course, most depositions cannot reasonably proceed until the Pitchess process is complete, Additionally, much of the evidence that the parties ultimately use will likely be subject to protective orders and will have to be submitted under seal. This will add a significant amount of time to the discovery and motion process. 1 NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO TRIAL DATE; CGC 18-569287 nMabor\li2018\190329\01333709.doex,w aD Accordingly, Defendant requests that the trial date be continued to Monday, July 6, 2020 to allow counsel to complete discovery, meet pretrial deadlines, including filing motions for summary judgment and/or adjudication, and to adequately prepare for trial. Respectfully submitted, Dated: January 28, 2019 DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney KATHARINE HOBIN PORTER Chief Labor Attorney LISA B. BERKOWITZ ERIN KUKA Deputy City Attorneys By: _/s/ Erin Kuka ERIN KUKA Attorneys for Defendant CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO\ 2 NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO TRIAL DATE; CGC 18-569287 nMabor\li2018\190329\01333709.doex,PROOF OF SERVICE I, INNA SHOWALTER, declare as follows: lam acitizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the above- entitled action. I am employed at the City Attorney’s Office of San Francisco, Fox Plaza Building, 1390 Market Street, Fifth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102. On January 28, 2019, I served the following document(s): DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO TRIAL DATE on the following persons at the locations specified: Daniel Feder, Esq. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF Law Offices of Daniel Feder 332 Pine Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 391-9476 Email: daniel@dfederlaw.com in the manner indicated below: xX BY UNITED STATES MAIL: Following ordinary business practices, I sealed true and correct copies of the above documents in addressed envelope(s) and placed them at my workplace for collection and mailing with the United States Postal Service. 1 am readily familiar with the practices of the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office for collecting and processing mail. In the ordinary course of business, the sealed envelope(s) that I placed for collection would be deposited, postage prepaid, with the United States Postal Service that same day. Xx] BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic service, I caused the documents to be served electronically through File & ServeXpress in portable document format (“PDF”) Adobe Acrobat. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed January 28, 2019, at San Francisco, California. INNA SHOWALTER 7 PROOF OF SERVICE; CGC 18-569287 nMlabor\li2018\190329\01333709.docx