Defendant removed this action from the San Joaquin County Superior Court on September 5, 2008. Civil new case documents were issued for the assigned district judge, and an initial scheduling conference was set before the district judge on December 22, 2008. On September 12, 2008, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and noticed the motion for hearing before the district judge on November 3, 2008.
On September 15, 2008, the Clerk issued a notice of docket correction advising the parties that the new case documents for Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. were issued in error, as plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The Clerk vacated the scheduling conference set for December 22, 2008 and indicated that a scheduling order will issue for the assigned magistrate judge.
Pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), this case has been designated a pro se case and has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge. When all plaintiffs or all defendants are proceeding in propria persona in a case filed in the Sacramento Division of this court, all pretrial matters, including dispositive and non-dispositive motions, are to be addressed by the assigned magistrate judge, who will issue an order or findings and recommendations regarding such matters, as appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Defendant's motion to dismiss should therefore be re-noticed for hearing before the undersigned. Counsel may obtain information about available dates from Pete Buzo, the courtroom deputy of the undersigned, at (916) 930-4128.
The parties are advised that Local Rule 78-230 governs civil motion procedure. In particular, plaintiff is referred to Local Rule 78-230(c) for information about her obligation to file timely opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendant's motion and her obligation to appear for oral arguments on the hearing date to be set by defendant in an amended notice of motion. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file timely opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendant's motion, or failure to appear at the hearing of the motion, may result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for lack of prosecution and as a sanction for failure to comply with court orders and applicable rules. See Local Rules 11-110 and 83-183.
The parties are informed that court appearances before the undersigned may be made telephonically in most instances. Any party who wishes to request telephonic appearance at a motion hearing or at a status conference shall contact Pete Buzo, the courtroom deputy of the undersigned, at (916) 930-4128 no later than three days before the date set for hearing or status conference.
The parties are informed that United States Magistrate Judges in this district are available to conduct all proceedings in a civil action. Thus, the parties in this case may, if all consent, proceed to trial, whether by jury or by the court without a jury, before the assigned United States Magistrate Judge while preserving their right to appeal directly to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Clerk of the Court has served the parties with an appropriate form for consenting to proceed before the assigned magistrate judge. A party who chooses to consent may complete the form and return it to the Clerk at any time. Neither the magistrate judge nor the district judge assigned to the case will be notified of the filing of a consent form by any party, unless all parties to the action have filed consent forms.
The undersigned will issue an order setting a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference if necessary following disposition of defendant's motion to dismiss.
In accordance with Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), IT IS ORDERED that defendant's amended notice of motion to dismiss shall be filed and served within ten days after this order is served.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw ...