UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 11, 2008
MICHAEL CHEIKINE, PLAINTIFF,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge
On June 22, 2005, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing the Complaint (Doc. # 1). One June 6, 2007, United States Magistrate Judge Leo S. Papas issued an order continuing pretrial conference and related dates (Doc. # 25). The order provided that the proposed pretrial order would be due on October 15, 2007 and that the final pretrial conference would be held on October 22, 2007. On March 19, 2008, this Court issued an order which stated that "[s]ince June 6, 2007, nothing has happened in this case, with the exception of Defendant the State of California's filing of a witness list on October 1, 2007." (Doc. # 27). The order required Plaintiff to "show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute." Id. In response to this Court's order to show cause, Plaintiff's attorney, James E. Dunn, submitted a declaration, where he attests that pretrial conference scheduled for October 22, 2007 was vacated due to the fire emergency, and the case is ready to move forward to trial (Doc. # 28). On July 1, 2008, this Court issued an order requiring the parties to jointly file a proposed pretrial order on or before July 21, 2008 (Doc. # 30). On July 21, 2008, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Plaintiff's Pretrial Disclosures," pursuant to Rule 26(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. # 31). On August 5, 2008, Defendants filed objections to "Plaintiff's Pretrial Disclosures," which stated that "Defendants object to Plaintiff's Pretrial Disclosures in their entirety inasmuch as the disclosures were not timely filed and served on or before October 1, 2007, consistent with the Court's scheduling order filed June 6, 2007" (Doc. # 32).
The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's July 1, 2008 order because the document entitled "Plaintiff's Pretrial Disclosures," filed by Plaintiff in response to the July 1, 2008 order, does not comply with Local Civil Rule 16.1(6) governing pretrial orders (Doc. # 25).
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff submit a joint proposed pretrial order in accordance with Local Civil Rule 16.1 on or before Tuesday, September 2, 2008. After Plaintiff files the joint proposed pretrial order, the Court will schedule a pretrial conference date. If Plaintiff does not comply with this order, this action will be subject to dismissal without prejudice.
WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.