Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rao v. Amerisourcebergen Corp.

December 19, 2008

NISHA RAO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTAINS IMPORTANT DATES WHICH THE COURT MAY STRICTLY ENFORCE AND WITH WHICH ALL COUNSEL AND PARTIES MUST COMPLY. A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF MONETARY AND ALL OTHER SANCTIONS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE COURT, INCLUDING DISMISSAL OR AN ORDER OF JUDGMENT.

Pursuant to court order, a Second Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference was held on December 19, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. Plaintiff Nisha Rao appeared on her own behalf, accompanied by her husband. Adrianne B. Sams, Esq. appeared as counsel for defendant Amerisourcebergen Corporation.

After hearing, the court makes the following findings and orders: SERVICE OF PROCESS The only named party defendant has been served and no further service is permitted except upon the joinder of additional parties in an amended pleading filed in accordance with the following paragraph.

JOINDER OF PARTIES/AMENDMENTS

Any further amendments to plaintiff's complaint, including joinder of additional parties, shall be sought by properly noticed motion for leave to amend filed within 90 days after December 19, 2008. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). After the 90-day period expires, the defendants sued as Does One through Five will be deemed dismissed without further order of the court, and no further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings will be permitted thereafter except with leave of court, good cause having been shown. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609-10 (9th Cir. 1992).

JURISDICTION/VENUE

Defendant AmerisourceBergen Corporation removed this case from state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendant has also asserted in its status reports that plaintiff's employment discrimination claims raise federal questions over which the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Jurisdiction predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332 is undisputed and is hereby found to be proper, as is venue.

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULES

All law and motion, except as to discovery, which is discussed below, shall be conducted so as to be completed by December 4, 2009. The word "completed" in this context means that all law and motion matters must be heard on or before the above date. Because this date is not necessarily a date that will be set aside for law and motion hearings, it is incumbent upon counsel and parties proceeding pro se to contact this court's courtroom deputy, Pete Buzo, at (916) 930-4128 sufficiently in advance so as to ascertain dates upon which law and motion will be heard and to properly notice motions for hearing on or before December 4, 2009. This paragraph does not preclude the filing of motions for continuances, motions for temporary restraining orders, and other emergency applications that are subject to special scheduling.

The parties are cautioned to refer to Local Rule 78-230 regarding the requirements for noticing motions on this court's regularly scheduled law and motion calendar. Opposition or statement of non-opposition to all motions shall be filed and served not later than 4:30 p.m. fourteen (14) days preceding the hearing date except that opposition served by mail must be served no less than seventeen (17) days preceding the hearing date.

The parties should keep in mind that the purpose of law and motion is to narrow and refine the legal issues raised by the case, and to dispose of by pretrial motion those issues that are susceptible to resolution without trial. To accomplish that purpose, the parties must identify and fully research the issues presented by the case and then examine those issues in light of the evidence gleaned through discovery. If it appears to counsel or a party proceeding pro se after examining the legal issues and the facts that an issue can be resolved by pretrial motion, counsel or the pro se party shall file an appropriate motion within the time set forth above.

ALL PURELY LEGAL ISSUES ARE TO BE RESOLVED BY TIMELY PRETRIAL MOTION

Counsel and parties proceeding pro se are reminded that motions in limine are procedural devices designed to address the admissibility of evidence. Counsel and parties proceeding pro se are cautioned that the court will look with disfavor upon substantive motions presented in the guise of motions in limine at the time of trial. Counsel and parties proceeding pro se are further cautioned that if any legal issue that should have been tendered to the court by pretrial motion must be resolved by the court after law and motion cutoff, substantial sanctions may be levied against counsel or a party proceeding pro se who failed to timely file an appropriate motion.

DISCOVERY

All discovery not pertaining to experts shall be conducted so as to be completed by October 2, 2009. The word "completed" means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with. All ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.