UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 18, 2011
MARTHA AGUILAR, PLAINTIFF,
TARGET STORES, INC. AND DOES 1 ORDER AFTER SCHEDULING CONFERENCE DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States Istrict Judge
Further Scheduling to 20, Conference: 4/7/11 8:15 Ctrm. 3
I. Date of Scheduling Conference. January 14, 2011.
III. Summary of Pleadings.
1. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for negligence and premises liability for a slip and fall accident while shopping at the Hanford Target Store on May 8, 2008. Plaintiff claims wage loss, hospital and medical expenses, general damages and loss of earning capacity.
2. Defendant denies liability and asserts affirmative defenses of comparative negligence, failure to state facts, failure to mitigate, responsibility of others and assumption of the risk.
IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.
1. The parties do not anticipate amending the pleadings at this time.
V. Factual Summary.
A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further Proceedings.
1. Plaintiff was a patron at the Hanford, California Target Store in May of 2008.
2. Target Stores, Inc. is a corporation formed and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
B. Contested Facts.
1. All remaining facts are contested.
VI. Legal Issues.
1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
3. In this diversity action, the parties agree that the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule of decision.
1. Plaintiff contends that Defendant was negligent in the maintenance of its premises and that it knew or should have known of the conditions of its property.
2. Defendant contends that it reasonably maintained its premises, had no knowledge, constructive or actual, of any dangerous condition on its premises. Defendant contests negligence. Defendant also contests the nature and extent of injuries, causation and the reasonableness thereof.
3. Whether Defendant was negligent in the operation of its premises.
4. Plaintiff's comparative negligence.
5. The nature and extent of injuries and causation.
6. The nature, extent and reasonableness of damages and causation.
VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.
1. The parties have not consented to transfer the case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.
VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.
1. Any non-governmental corporate party to any action in this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the statement within a reasonable time of any change in the information.
IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.
1. Defendant will propound Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff following the Initial Case Management. Medical records from all identified providers will be subpoenaed by Defendant, as well as employment records to the extent that Plaintiff claims a loss of earnings. Defendant will then notice the depositions of Plaintiff.
2. Defendant may elect to have Plaintiff examined pursuant to F.R.C.P. 35 and depose the Plaintiff's employers and treating health care practitioners.
X. Alternative Dispute Resolution.
1. The parties intend to pursue private alternative dispute resolution. In the event the case is not resolved, a Scheduling Conference will be held April 7, 2011 at 8:15 in Courtroom 3.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.