Case 5:17-cv-03385-SVK Document 52 Filed 05/15/18 Page 1 of 7

1 Vincent P. Hurley #111215

Ryan M. Thompson #292281
2 LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT P. HURLEY
A Professional Corporation
3 28 Seascape Village
Aptos, California 95003
4 Telephone: (831) 661-4800
Facsimile: (831) 661-4804
5
Attorneys for Defendants
6 RONALD PFLEGER and CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
) Case No. 5:17-cv-03385-SVK
12 STACY LININGER, )
) JOINT INITIAL CASE
13 Plaintiff, ) MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
) STATEMENT
14 vs. )
) Initial Case Management Conference:
15 RONALD PFLEGER, CITY OF CARMEL, )
DEAN FLIPPO, District Attorney of Monterey ) Date: May 22, 2018
16 County California, and DOES 1-50, ) Time: 9:30 a.m.
)
17 Defendants. ) Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen
) Courtroom 6, 4th Floor
18 San Jose Courthouse
19
20 The parties to the above-entitled action, Plaintiff Stacy Lininger and Defendants Ronald

21 Pfleger and City of Carmel-by-the-Sea submit this JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT

22 STATEMENT pursuant to the Court’s Order Setting Case Management Conference, the

23 Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California, and Civil Local Rule 16-9.

24 1. JURISDICTION & SERVICE

25 This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

26 sections 1331 and 1343 and 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Defendants Ronald Pfleger and City of

27 Carmel have been served and filed an answer to Plaintiff Stacy Lininger’s first amended

28
1
Joint Initial Case Management Statement Case No. 5:17-cv-03385-SVK
 Case 5:17-cv-03385-SVK Document 52 Filed 05/15/18 Page 2 of 7

1 complaint. Dean Flippo was dismissed per the Court’s Order granting Flippo’s motion to
2 dismiss. Dkt. 47.

3 2. FACTS
4 Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts:
5 In 2013, plaintiff made multiple calls to the Seaside Police Department regarding issues
6 in her neighborhood. She was prosecuted for making the calls under Penal Code §653m(a).
7 Although plaintiff had made no obscene calls and had made no threatening calls and was
8 innocent of any wrongdoing and had engaged in only lawful conduct, she did not want to incur
9 the expense of defending against the prosecution. In exchange for a nominal fine, plaintiff
10 entered a no contest plea to that prosecution in 2014.
11 In 2015, plaintiff called the Carmel Police Department concerning the report by a minor
12 student in her class that a Carmel police officer had grabbed the child’s penis during a routine
13 traffic stop. Plaintiff called the Carmel Police Department again months later concerning the
14 matter and was reported by defendant Ronald Pfleger as having violated Penal Code 653m(b)
15 (making harassing phone calls) and was consequently prosecuted for her calls to the Carmel
16 Police Department and her employer regarding the Carmel Police Department’s handling of the
17 matter involving her student . The prosecution involved both a criminal complaint and a petition
18 that plaintiff had violated her probation in the 2014 case by failing to obey all laws. Plaintiff
19 opposed this second prosecution on the basis that the First Amendment protected her calls to the
20 police. After litigating the matter through a probation violation hearing (decided in plaintiff’s
21 favor), the case was dismissed on the day of trial. Plaintiff thereafter filed this action.
22 Defendants Ronald Pfleger and City of Carmel’s Statement of Facts:
23 Plaintiff Stacy Lininger has an extensive history of making annoying and harassing
24 telephone calls to police departments and private citizens, and was on criminal probation for
25 violation of California Penal Code section 653m (making annoying telephone calls) during the
26 events alleged in her First Amended Complaint. As explained below, Lininger acted in accord
27 with her proclivity of making annoying and harassing telephone calls during the events at issue.
28
2
Joint Initial Case Management Statement Case No. 5:17-cv-03385-SVK
 Case 5:17-cv-03385-SVK Document 52 Filed 05/15/18 Page 3 of 7

1 In January 2015, Lininger called the City of Carmel Police Department, spoke with
2 Sergeant Ronald Pfleger, and made a complaint that City Officer Michael Bruno had sexually

3 molested a boy, despite Lininger knowing that Officer Bruno had inadvertently touched the boy
4 during a brief pat-down search. Sergeant Pfleger thereafter conducted an investigation by
5 contacting the boy, the boy’s mother, and Officer Bruno, made a report that Lininger’s complaint
6 was unfounded, and advised Lininger that an investigation had been conducted and there was no
7 child molestation.
8 Six months later, over a two-and-a-half-day span, Lininger inexplicably called the
9 Carmel Police Department’s non-emergency business number approximately 23 times,
10 demanding to know what had been done regarding the investigation. Sergeant Pfleger again
11 explained to Lininger that an investigation had been conducted and concluded, and that her
12 complaint was unfounded. Nonetheless, Lininger continued to call and harass the Carmel Police
13 Department, including calling one dispatcher an “idiot” and another dispatcher a “bitch”, and
14 Sergeant Pfleger opened a criminal case regarding Lininger’s conduct. Thereafter, Sergeant
15 Pfleger forwarded his police report to the Monterey County District Attorney’s Office,
16 recommending charges against Lininger for violation of Penal Code section 653m and for
17 violation of her probation. The District Attorney prosecuted Lininger, but eventually dismissed
18 the charges.
19 3. LEGAL ISSUES
20 As to Defendant Pfleger, Plaintiff asserts a section 1983 retaliation claim (first claim).
21 As to Defendant City of Carmel, Plaintiff asserts a section 1983 Monell claim (second claim).
22 Plaintiff also asserts a malicious prosecution claim (third claim) seeking damages as to
23 Defendants Pfleger and City of Carmel.
24 Plaintiff’s theory of liability is that defendant Pfleger knew or should have known that
25 Penal Code 653m was not violated by her calls to her employer or the police which calls were
26 made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business and that he knew or
27 should have known that calling the police cannot be prosecuted as a crime. In re Chase (2015)
28
3
Joint Initial Case Management Statement Case No. 5:17-cv-03385-SVK
 Case 5:17-cv-03385-SVK Document 52 Filed 05/15/18 Page 4 of 7

1 243 Cal.App.4th 107; Houston v. Hill (1987) 482, U.S. 451; In re Muhammed C. (2003) 95
2 Cal.App.4th 1325; Duran v. City of Douglas (9th Cir. 1990) 904 F.2d 1372. By misrepresenting

3 the facts to the Monterey County District Attorney’s office, Defendant Pfleger was able to secure
4 the prosecution of Plaintiff Lininger in retaliation for her exercise of her First Amendment right
5 to petition her government.
6 Defendant Pfleger defends on the basis that his conduct was based upon legitimate law
7 enforcement objectives supported by probable cause, and that he did not “retaliate” against
8 Plaintiff for her speech. Defendant City of Carmel defends on the basis that Sergeant Pfleger did
9 not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and the City of Carmel Police Department maintains
10 constitutionally adequate training policies and procedures. Defendants reserve their right to
11 assert additional defenses where appropriate.
12 4. MOTIONS
13 There are no motions currently pending. Defendants anticipate filing a motion for
14 summary judgment.
15 5. AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS
16 No amendments are anticipated at this point, however, discovery has not yet commenced.
17 6. EVIDENCE PRESERVATION
18 The parties have reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the Discovery of Electronically
19 Stored Information and have taken reasonable and proportionate steps to preserve evidence
20 relevant to the issues reasonably evident in this action. The parties do not propose any particular
21 extraordinary measures are required to preserve evidence relevant to issues reasonably evident in
22 this action.
23 7. DISCLOSURES
24 The parties agree to complete Initial Disclosures by June 5, 2018.
25 8. DISCOVERY
26 No discovery has been completed to date. Discovery will consist of depositions of
27 Plaintiff, Defendant Pfleger, witnesses, and potential experts. Written discovery will include
28
4
Joint Initial Case Management Statement Case No. 5:17-cv-03385-SVK
 Case 5:17-cv-03385-SVK Document 52 Filed 05/15/18 Page 5 of 7

1 requests for production of documents, interrogatories, and requests for admission where
2 appropriate. The parties do not anticipate the need to increase the limits on any other discovery at

3 this time, but reserve the right to do so. The parties have entered a stipulated protective order.
4 9. CLASS ACTIONS
5 Not applicable.
6 10. RELATED CASES
7 Not applicable.
8 11. RELIEF
9 Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney’s fees pursuant to 42
10 U.S.C. § 1988.
11 12. SETTLEMENT AND ADR
12 On November 27, 2017, the parties participated in an Early Neutral Evaluation with
13 Evaluator Patrick D. Robbins. At this time, Defendants are not interested in engaging in
14 mediation or settlement discussions.
15 13. CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES
16 The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen for all purposes.
17 14. OTHER REFERENCES
18 None.
19 15. NARROWING OF ISSUES
20 The parties have not presently identified any issues that can be narrowed by agreement.
21 16. EXPEDITED TRIAL PROCEDURE
22 This case is not appropriate for the Expedited Trial Procedure.
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
5
Joint Initial Case Management Statement Case No. 5:17-cv-03385-SVK
 Case 5:17-cv-03385-SVK Document 52 Filed 05/15/18 Page 6 of 7

1 17. SCHEDULING
2 The parties suggest the following schedule:

3
Deadline Parties’ Proposed Dates
4
Last Day to Seek Leave to Amend Plaintiff proposes: December 13, 2018
5 Pleadings Defendants propose: August 13, 2018
6 Close of Fact Discovery Parties propose: May 13, 2019
7 Expert Disclosure Parties propose: May 28, 2019
8
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures Parties propose: June 10, 2019
9
Close of Expert Discovery Parties propose: July 8, 2019
10
Dispositive Motion Filing Deadline Parties propose: August 12, 2019
11
Final Pretrial Conference Parties propose: November 14, 2019
12
Jury Trial Parties propose: January 13, 2020
13
14 18. TRIAL

15 All parties have demanded a jury trial. Plaintiffs anticipate the length of trial to be 4

16 court days. Defendants anticipate the length of trial to be 3-4 court days.

17 19. DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS

18 None known.

19 20. PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

20 All attorneys of record for the parties have reviewed the Guidelines for Professional

21 Conduct for the Northern District of California.

22 ///

23 ///

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28
6
Joint Initial Case Management Statement Case No. 5:17-cv-03385-SVK
 Case 5:17-cv-03385-SVK Document 52 Filed 05/15/18 Page 7 of 7

1 21. OTHER MATTERS

2 None.

3
4 Dated: May 15, 2018
STEVEN J. ANDRE, Attorney at Law
5
By: /s/
6 STEVEN J. ANDRE
Attorney for Plaintiff STACY LININGER
7
8
Dated: May 15, 2018
9 LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT P. HURLEY
A Professional Corporation
10
By: /s/
11 RYAN THOMPSON
Attorneys for Defendants RONALD PFLEGER and
12 CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Joint Initial Case Management Statement Case No. 5:17-cv-03385-SVK