Preview
H Alison Madden, In Pro Per
'
PO BOX 620650
Woodside, CA 94062 'F'I L E D
650. 270. 0066; alisonmadden@vahoo. com SAN MATEO COUNTY
\ooo\10\"m-s>-mt\5
JUN 2 4 2021
I
Clerk
oWgpeurt
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WM
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
FRANCESCA FAMBROUGH, CHRIS Case. No.2 17CIV05387
TAVENNER, NINA PESCHCKE-KOEDT,
EMILIO DIAZ, DAN SLANKER, DAWN
SLANKER, BRENDA SMITH, .
PLAINTIFF- INTERVENOR MADDEN’S
'
THUMPER SMITH,
SUPPLEMENTAL CASE
Plaintiffs,
"
MANAGEMENT
I
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
v.
REDWOOD CITY, Date; .‘ June 29, 2021 ‘
. .
‘
Time: -
2:00 pm.
Defendant. Dept: 2 -
Judge: . Hon. Marie S. Weiner
H
Q
ALIS ON MADDEN, WILLIAM
MICHAEL FLEMING, EDWARD
00
FA
STANCIL, JEDRICK HUMPHRIES,
ALBA LUCIA DIAZ, JONATHAN REID,
VD
Pd
TINA REID, AND JOHN CHAMBERS,
b)
CD
Plaintiffs——Intervenors,
<
b3
#4
1.5r5.
L‘h
IE5“.
i“ “I
km)
1:;
V, Ji—
.
[\D
N
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY,
'
Defendant.
This1s Petitioner— Intervenor Alison Madden’ s (“P--I Madden”) Supplemental CMC State—
ment, solely from Pro Per P— IMadden. Dept. 2, in CMO #23 directed P—IMadden to file a CMC
Statement June 16, 2021, with responses by others as elected. It is my information and belief, on
NNNNNN
t
advisement, Ms. Frostrom of TBM does not intend to le a Statement. This'responds to City’s.
l
1420528v1 P-I Madden Supp. CMC Statement (Individual) June 29, 2021
I I
A. ‘Status of Diéc'm-Ierx
'
N
This séction is updated beCase 1thcBurke law rm cla1ms to be “in‘ the dirk”, inet only after
weeks of meet and confer, and an IDC, but also m‘y CMC Statement that specifically "outlinedit is a
Motion to Compel discOvery (RFP, RFA and document demand of de'ponent). Itls
PMK/PMQ
disingenuousof either Burke or any entity or person to claim this1s not clear at thispoint.
The basis is that the court was without the right and short-set
powerto adiscoveryj cut;off
date. There1s authority on point. I have requested the transcript from the Sept. 2020 CMC,
directly
the court reporter is not willing or able to produceit, ostensibly because sheis too busy.
but
L
10
I presented authority in a prior IDC and meet and confer and/or CMC statement. There was.
‘
11'
no independent, private stipulation between counsel after any meet and confer and no “proposed
l
order” was to thejudge to a “stipulation”. no Stipulation.
presented memorialize There was
.13 g
There was acourt-directedshort-set";discolvery is not permitted.
14. out oft”, which
15 The Order reflects this.
Minute
i
‘ 1'6 . There or “book”. resources available to P—I Madden during the pandemic,
were no ‘paper” .
‘.l7 including practice guides‘and code books, as well as CCR. Petitioner—.Intervenor specifically sought
A
18 - '
a hiatus during the pandemic for this reason. The-clerk;s ofce was‘entirely closed. The bulk
of
'19. -'
electronic for section do not state or cut
resources the applicable code aheading caption “discoyery
20 i
off”, as-the judge noted in IDC. Moreover, captions are ineffective.
21
Discovery cut off is before trial, in'th-iscase‘Aug. 2, 2021. So wenhave not even
-
22' 3Q days
23 reached it yet. It‘is ,July 2, 2021. The discovery requested is production of documents responsive to: .
.24 the RFP, and admissions in response to the RFA propounded on the date indicated in the applicable
.
25 CMO. IMadden had been willing to consider if the
P—
production was sufficient, perhaps
PMQ/PMK
_26 to not need a to compel. It was entirely unsatisfactory and lazy. This Motion to 1s
motion Compel
27 '
justied. To pretend to not know what the motion is is chicanery, and a really bad look.
28
. 2
1420528v1 P-I Madden Supp. CMC Statement June 29, 2021
B. Stains of Settlement'or Mediation . I
I
N}
The City has responded throngh its Burke Law rm to my initial CMC statement by iing its
A‘Vm
own, and stated that it has reaehed out to Ms. Frostrom and “Plaintiffs”, whichls the label (dened
term) always only and solely to refer to TBM’s clients.
used
Ln
Maddenls not a TBM elient, and
has always been referred to as a Petitioner— Intervenor.
\1.0\
Apparently, about a week or more ago, the Burke law rm out solely to Ms.
reached
,Frostrom, and not Madden. Ms. Frostrom did not advise me, because I am not her client. Nina
\o"oo,
me and ask me about mediation. It was
lPesc’hcke—Koedt and Tina Reid approached me to advise
10
news to me. I‘ei‘nailed on the weekend to ask Ms. Frostrom about'it, and She indicated‘that her
11
understanding was that the City intended to include me and Ms: Sole, but that she, Ms. Frostrom, did
‘12 I
be her to reach outfto me, or otherwise. I net dispute this.
notvunderstand it'to role to coordinate do
‘13
neither 'Ms. Frostrom nor Burke'has out to me, Which isa point I had
14 Accordingly, reached
raised before,
that Mr. Blum indicated with in terms of mediation. He then
15
“especially plaintiffs” I I i
_16’ denied it, and this was discussed1n an IDC or a CMC with. the judge.
'
17'- . On the weekend I emailed Mr. Blum to ask, and I received no response. On Tuesday
18
afternoon, We (TBM, myself and some of the Burke law‘rm- attorneys) met to discuss trail exhibits. p
19
Mediation 'never'came up, despite we were speaking'of all pretrial matters, in person.
20
x
After this in person meet and Confer re: pre trial steps, I emailed-Mr. Blum and'all
21 attorneys
"who had been onthat call and additional Burke attorneys)and askedif myself and/or Ms
22 (TBM
isole was being included1n and was advised Ostensibly that I was to
23 mediation outreach and efforts,
24 be included, but I received no follow up email re “topics”.
25 TBM and Ms. are dening the “topics” to be discussed.
only Frostrom
“Topics”
Apparently,
‘26
was new to me and I only learned that‘the Burke law firm (City) and TBM are defining scope of
27
“topics” through City’s CMC Statement today. I hadinot heard this over the weekend, from Ms.
'
28
1420528v1 P-I Madden Supp. CMC Statement June 29, 2021
3"
Frostrpm or from Mr. B111m yesterday via email. I am in the dark about the “topics”. I approve of
former 1DCA Judge Lambden. If I atn not to be included in mediation‘and workout of “topics” and a
resolution occurs, I seek extension and severance of my CRAL, especially given a discovery dispute.
C. Anticipated motions and proposed brieng schedule
‘
The court has under submission a Motion to Amend Complaint,‘ as well as a Motion to
Consolidate and/or Stay [my] UD pending CRAL with hearing date also June 29, 2021, thesame
date as this CMC. A P—I Madden CMC Statement was directed by the court. Burke “responded” and _
this is P—l Madden’s supplement, for clarity-and efciency at CMC.
\O
10 Accordingly, this request for CMC is and has been to ask the court to set a brieng schedule
on a discovery issue after IDC, to wit: Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Admissions;
12
Motion to Permit Additional Discovery on Fraud/Misrepresentation re: LLA/LRA and Motion to
13‘
Compel Production for Insufcient Production at PMK/PMK Deposition of Ms. Diaz. The basis for
14
these Motions is the court directed, and the Parties did not “Stipulate”, to discovery cut-off.
15 early
16 First, the Minute Order from the Sept. 14, 2020 CMC did not say “Stipulate”— it said:
17 “The Court, counsel and parties Idiscuss case status, setting the matter for trial and dates.”
18 This indicates that the “Court” and parties discussed “status” and the Court set dates.
19
Only in the CMO following CMC did the word “stipulate” occur.
20 It is not proper not to allow a Motion to Compel and to keep all the timeframes when the
21
reporter cannot and/or will not produce a simply CMC transcript. __
722
D. Setting of next CMC date
23
Set for June 29, 2021. None further. Pretrial Conference is set for July 7, 2021 in any event.
24
E. Any other matters for which the parties seek Court ruling or scheduling
‘ ’
25 None.
26
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: June 23 2021
27
By: "
/
28
I
Alison M. Madden. In Pro Per
4
1420528v1 P-I Madden Supp. CMC Statement June 29, 2021
Preview
H Alison Madden, In Pro Per ' PO BOX 620650 Woodside, CA 94062 'F'I L E D 650. 270. 0066; alisonmadden@vahoo. com SAN MATEO COUNTY \ooo\10\"m-s>-mt\5 JUN 2 4 2021 I Clerk oWgpeurt SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WM COUNTY OF SAN MATEO FRANCESCA FAMBROUGH, CHRIS Case. No.2 17CIV05387 TAVENNER, NINA PESCHCKE-KOEDT, EMILIO DIAZ, DAN SLANKER, DAWN SLANKER, BRENDA SMITH, . PLAINTIFF- INTERVENOR MADDEN’S ' THUMPER SMITH, SUPPLEMENTAL CASE Plaintiffs, " MANAGEMENT I CONFERENCE STATEMENT v. REDWOOD CITY, Date; .‘ June 29, 2021 ‘ . . ‘ Time: - 2:00 pm. Defendant. Dept: 2 - Judge: . Hon. Marie S. Weiner H Q ALIS ON MADDEN, WILLIAM MICHAEL FLEMING, EDWARD 00 FA STANCIL, JEDRICK HUMPHRIES, ALBA LUCIA DIAZ, JONATHAN REID, VD Pd TINA REID, AND JOHN CHAMBERS, b) CD Plaintiffs——Intervenors, < b3 #4 1.5r5. L‘h IE5“. i“ “I km) 1:; V, Ji— . [\D N CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, ' Defendant. This1s Petitioner— Intervenor Alison Madden’ s (“P--I Madden”) Supplemental CMC State— ment, solely from Pro Per P— IMadden. Dept. 2, in CMO #23 directed P—IMadden to file a CMC Statement June 16, 2021, with responses by others as elected. It is my information and belief, on NNNNNN t advisement, Ms. Frostrom of TBM does not intend to le a Statement. This'responds to City’s. l 1420528v1 P-I Madden Supp. CMC Statement (Individual) June 29, 2021 I I A. ‘Status of Diéc'm-Ierx ' N This séction is updated beCase 1thcBurke law rm cla1ms to be “in‘ the dirk”, inet only after weeks of meet and confer, and an IDC, but also m‘y CMC Statement that specifically "outlinedit is a Motion to Compel discOvery (RFP, RFA and document demand of de'ponent). Itls PMK/PMQ disingenuousof either Burke or any entity or person to claim this1s not clear at thispoint. The basis is that the court was without the right and short-set powerto adiscoveryj cut;off date. There1s authority on point. I have requested the transcript from the Sept. 2020 CMC, directly the court reporter is not willing or able to produceit, ostensibly because sheis too busy. but L 10 I presented authority in a prior IDC and meet and confer and/or CMC statement. There was. ‘ 11' no independent, private stipulation between counsel after any meet and confer and no “proposed l order” was to thejudge to a “stipulation”. no Stipulation. presented memorialize There was .13 g There was acourt-directedshort-set";discolvery is not permitted. 14. out oft”, which 15 The Order reflects this. Minute i ‘ 1'6 . There or “book”. resources available to P—I Madden during the pandemic, were no ‘paper” . ‘.l7 including practice guides‘and code books, as well as CCR. Petitioner—.Intervenor specifically sought A 18 - ' a hiatus during the pandemic for this reason. The-clerk;s ofce was‘entirely closed. The bulk of '19. -' electronic for section do not state or cut resources the applicable code aheading caption “discoyery 20 i off”, as-the judge noted in IDC. Moreover, captions are ineffective. 21 Discovery cut off is before trial, in'th-iscase‘Aug. 2, 2021. So wenhave not even - 22' 3Q days 23 reached it yet. It‘is ,July 2, 2021. The discovery requested is production of documents responsive to: . .24 the RFP, and admissions in response to the RFA propounded on the date indicated in the applicable . 25 CMO. IMadden had been willing to consider if the P— production was sufficient, perhaps PMQ/PMK _26 to not need a to compel. It was entirely unsatisfactory and lazy. This Motion to 1s motion Compel 27 ' justied. To pretend to not know what the motion is is chicanery, and a really bad look. 28 . 2 1420528v1 P-I Madden Supp. CMC Statement June 29, 2021 B. Stains of Settlement'or Mediation . I I N} The City has responded throngh its Burke Law rm to my initial CMC statement by iing its A‘Vm own, and stated that it has reaehed out to Ms. Frostrom and “Plaintiffs”, whichls the label (dened term) always only and solely to refer to TBM’s clients. used Ln Maddenls not a TBM elient, and has always been referred to as a Petitioner— Intervenor. \1.0\ Apparently, about a week or more ago, the Burke law rm out solely to Ms. reached ,Frostrom, and not Madden. Ms. Frostrom did not advise me, because I am not her client. Nina \o"oo, me and ask me about mediation. It was lPesc’hcke—Koedt and Tina Reid approached me to advise 10 news to me. I‘ei‘nailed on the weekend to ask Ms. Frostrom about'it, and She indicated‘that her 11 understanding was that the City intended to include me and Ms: Sole, but that she, Ms. Frostrom, did ‘12 I be her to reach outfto me, or otherwise. I net dispute this. notvunderstand it'to role to coordinate do ‘13 neither 'Ms. Frostrom nor Burke'has out to me, Which isa point I had 14 Accordingly, reached raised before, that Mr. Blum indicated with in terms of mediation. He then 15 “especially plaintiffs” I I i _16’ denied it, and this was discussed1n an IDC or a CMC with. the judge. ' 17'- . On the weekend I emailed Mr. Blum to ask, and I received no response. On Tuesday 18 afternoon, We (TBM, myself and some of the Burke law‘rm- attorneys) met to discuss trail exhibits. p 19 Mediation 'never'came up, despite we were speaking'of all pretrial matters, in person. 20 x After this in person meet and Confer re: pre trial steps, I emailed-Mr. Blum and'all 21 attorneys "who had been onthat call and additional Burke attorneys)and askedif myself and/or Ms 22 (TBM isole was being included1n and was advised Ostensibly that I was to 23 mediation outreach and efforts, 24 be included, but I received no follow up email re “topics”. 25 TBM and Ms. are dening the “topics” to be discussed. only Frostrom “Topics” Apparently, ‘26 was new to me and I only learned that‘the Burke law firm (City) and TBM are defining scope of 27 “topics” through City’s CMC Statement today. I hadinot heard this over the weekend, from Ms. ' 28 1420528v1 P-I Madden Supp. CMC Statement June 29, 2021 3" Frostrpm or from Mr. B111m yesterday via email. I am in the dark about the “topics”. I approve of former 1DCA Judge Lambden. If I atn not to be included in mediation‘and workout of “topics” and a resolution occurs, I seek extension and severance of my CRAL, especially given a discovery dispute. C. Anticipated motions and proposed brieng schedule ‘ The court has under submission a Motion to Amend Complaint,‘ as well as a Motion to Consolidate and/or Stay [my] UD pending CRAL with hearing date also June 29, 2021, thesame date as this CMC. A P—I Madden CMC Statement was directed by the court. Burke “responded” and _ this is P—l Madden’s supplement, for clarity-and efciency at CMC. \O 10 Accordingly, this request for CMC is and has been to ask the court to set a brieng schedule on a discovery issue after IDC, to wit: Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Admissions; 12 Motion to Permit Additional Discovery on Fraud/Misrepresentation re: LLA/LRA and Motion to 13‘ Compel Production for Insufcient Production at PMK/PMK Deposition of Ms. Diaz. The basis for 14 these Motions is the court directed, and the Parties did not “Stipulate”, to discovery cut-off. 15 early 16 First, the Minute Order from the Sept. 14, 2020 CMC did not say “Stipulate”— it said: 17 “The Court, counsel and parties Idiscuss case status, setting the matter for trial and dates.” 18 This indicates that the “Court” and parties discussed “status” and the Court set dates. 19 Only in the CMO following CMC did the word “stipulate” occur. 20 It is not proper not to allow a Motion to Compel and to keep all the timeframes when the 21 reporter cannot and/or will not produce a simply CMC transcript. __ 722 D. Setting of next CMC date 23 Set for June 29, 2021. None further. Pretrial Conference is set for July 7, 2021 in any event. 24 E. Any other matters for which the parties seek Court ruling or scheduling ‘ ’ 25 None. 26 Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 23 2021 27 By: " / 28 I Alison M. Madden. In Pro Per 4 1420528v1 P-I Madden Supp. CMC Statement June 29, 2021