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 February 2, 2009, is vacated since the parties' Joint Status Report ("JSR") indicates the following Order should issue.
Plaintiffs state in the JSR that they intend to file a motion for conditional certification of this action as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This motion shall be notified for hearing on or before April 6, 2009.
The parties do not make a practicable proposal in the JSR as to when the identities of Doe Defendants will be disclosed. It is unclear why this was not done. Since this action was commenced in state court early in 2008, the parties appear to have had ample time to proposed a practicable and comprehensive schedule for this action. Since they did not, the Doe Defendants are dismissed. See Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference filed October 28, 2008, at 2 n.2 ("Failure to set forth specific information regarding the time Plaintiff(s) needs to identify any 'Doe' Defendants will be deemed an abandonment of any claims against such Defendants, and a dismissal order will 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.
All discovery shall be completed by March 17, 2010. 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
The last hearing date for motions shall be May 17, 2010, 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 to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact remains for trial. Cf. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 1995).
Absent highly unusual circumstances, reconsideration of a motion is appropriate only where:
(1) The Court is presented with newly discovered evidence that could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the filing of the ...