Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carpenters Local Union 701 v. City of Fresno

September 30, 2010

CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION 701, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE CITY OF FRESNO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

Discovery Cut-Off: 5/27/11 Municipal Corporation and Non-Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline: 6/10/11 Non-Dispositive Motion Hearing Date: 7/15/11 Ctrm. 9

I. Date of Scheduling Conference

September 30, 2010. Deadline: 6/27/11 Dispositive Motion Filing Dispositive Motion Hearing Date: 7/25/11 Ctrm. 3/15/11 10:00 Ctrm. 9 Settlement Conference Date: Pre-Trial Conference Date: 9/12/11 Ctrm. 3 Ctrm. 3 (JT-3 days) Trial Date: 10/25/11 9:00

III. Summary of Pleadings

1. Plaintiff contends that the Defendant violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based upon the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, §1, subdivision (a) of the California State Constitution by issuing a citation for displaying a sign on a public sidewalk.

2. Defendants contend that they have not violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and/or the California Constitution in the treatment of Plaintiff, and that the underlying ordinance is constitutional.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings

1. At this time, Plaintiff does not anticipate filing an amended pleading.

2. At this time, Defendant has not answered. Moreover, due to the fact that discovery has just recently commenced, Defendant has not had sufficient opportunity to determine the underlying facts and contentions. As a result, it may be necessary to amend its pleadings at a later date.

V. Factual Summary

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further Proceedings

1. On August 10, 2009, the City issued a citation (No. 060837) to Plaintiff for violation of Fresno Municipal Code Section 10-605, for placing a sign on a City sidewalk.

2. On August 31, 2009, the City issued an administrative citation (No. 060840) as to Mr. Castillo of Plaintiff for violation of Fresno Municipal Code 10-605 for having a sign on a City sidewalk.

3. Plaintiff appealed Citation No. 060840.

4. On or about November 20, 2009, an administrative hearing was conducted as to Citation No. 060840.

5. On or about February 1, 2010, the hearing officer issued his decision.

6. On April 6, 2010, the City issued an administrative citation (No. 10-3530.3) to Plaintiff.

B. Contested Facts

1. The Fresno Police Department refused to issue a criminal citation for the same banner that was the subject of the April 6, 2010 citation.

2. The banner that was the subject of the April 6, 2010 citation informed the public of a labor dispute.

3. The City's objection to the banner that was the subject of the April 6, 2010 citation was that it was placed on the sidewalk in the company of at least one Carpenter rather than being held aloft by three.

4. The banner that was the subject of the April 6th citation did not obstruct or interfere with the use of the sidewalk.

5. The City of Fresno has not identified a compelling government purpose to distinguish between placing the banner on the sidewalk and holding the banner aloft.

6. At this time, the parties dispute all other facts.

VI. Legal Issues

A. Uncontested

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, et seq. Jurisdiction is also invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

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

3. The parties agree that the supplemental claims are governed by the substantive law of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.