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.

Autar v. Newcomb

January 8, 2009

CHEVONDA AUTAR, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROYCE NEWCOMB; KATHLEEN NEWCOMB, A/K/A KATHY NEWCOMB; RK FORECLOSURE SPECIALISTS, DEFENDANTS.*FN1



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER

The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled for January 20, 2009, is vacated since the Joint Status Report ("JSR") indicates that the following Order should issue.

SANCTION ORDER DISCHARGED

Plaintiff Chevonda Autar unexpectedly responded to an Order to Show Cause why sanctions should not be imposed which was filed on December 5, 2008. It is clear that Plaintiff Autar's former attorney Nathaniel Dale Potratz should have been sanctioned, but nothing in the record indicates that sanctions should be imposed against Plaintiff Autar. Therefore, that portion of the Order to Show Cause is discharged; meaning, Plaintiff Autar will not be sanctioned for what was at issue in the Order filed December 5, 2008.

DISMISSAL OF DOE DEFENDANTS

Since Plaintiff has not justified Doe defendants remaining in this action, Does 1 through 10 are dismissed. See Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference filed August 19, 2008, at 2 n.2 (indicating that if Plaintiff or Plaintiffs fail to set forth in the JSR a date and specific information by when the identities of any "Doe" defendants are expected to be discovered, any claim against such Doe defendants would be deemed abandoned and a dismissal order would follow).

SERVICE, JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES, AMENDMENT

No further service, joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted, except with leave of Court, good cause having been shown.

DISCOVERY

All discovery shall be completed by October 21, 2009. In this context, "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 orders, if necessary, and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with or, alternatively, the time allowed for such compliance shall have expired.*fn2

Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)'s initial expert witness disclosure and report requirements on or before May 22, 2009, and with any rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under the Rule on or before June 22, 2009.

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

The last hearing date for motions shall be December 21, 2009, at 9:00 a.m.*fn3

Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 78-230(b). Opposition papers shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 78-230(c). Failure to comply with this local rule may be deemed consent to the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily. Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994). Further, failure to timely oppose a summary judgment motion may result in the granting of that motion if the movant shifts the burden to the non-movant ...


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.