UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 18, 2009
CARLOTTA OGUNDIMO, PLAINTIFF,
STEADFAST PROPERTY & DEVELOPMENT, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
ORDER AFTER SCHEDULING CONFERENCE Further Scheduling Conference Date: 11/18/2009 8:15 Ctrm. 3
I. Date of Scheduling Conference. September 18, 2009.
III. Summary of Pleadings. Plaintiff's Statement.
1. Plaintiff enters a plain complaint against Defendant within 2-year time limit on February 5, 2009, Plaintiff served Defendant, Court served Defendant. Defendant prohibits Plaintiff from living and enjoying their dwelling as allotted by law (42 U.S.C. § 3612, 3613. Defendant refuses to rectify matters and to this date as a result continue retaliatory and harassing actions against Plaintiff. Recent police reports faxed to Luce Forward, the defendant representation on 8/28/09. With respect to interference with disabled person's rights to use and enjoy their dwelling, complete exclusion from the dwelling is not required, but occur and as a result exacerbates health. Plaintiff is seeking monetary and punitive damages, and any other damages allowed by the law, and against the defendant as stated in the complaint. Plaintiff asks Defendant if pictures, reports are needed now. Violations of Fair Housing Act 1988 and § 818 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 3602(i), 3601, 3602, 3612, and 3613.
1. Plaintiff, proceeding in pro per and in forma pauperis, commenced this action for damages and other relief by filing a complaint on February 5, 2009. In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen the case and dismiss it at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue or that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant thereto, on March 11, 2009, the Court entered an Order that, among other things, determined that Plaintiff stated a claim against Steadfast for a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2). (Doc. 8, filed on March 12, 2009.) Plaintiff alleges that she and her minor children suffered discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq., stemming from events and circumstances related to and following an overflowing toilet that flooded Plaintiff's residence on February 6, 2007. Steadfast disputes and denies Plaintiff's allegations.
IV. Further Scheduling Conference.
1. Based on the parties' absence of discovery and the current status of the pleadings, this scheduling conference is continued 60 days to November 18, 2009, at 8:15 a.m. to enable the parties to engage in preliminary discovery and to prepare a meaningful Joint Scheduling Report.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.