IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 19, 2009
JILLIAN MARIE SHULER, PLAINTIFF,
CITY OF CHICO, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, proceeding with counsel, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Both parties have filed a Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge, and this case has been reassigned to the undersigned for all further proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Upon reassignment to the undersigned, all hearing dates set before the previously assigned District Judge were vacated.
Accordingly, the court finds it appropriate to hold a Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Conference to set a schedule for the remainder of these proceedings. The court takes notice of the previous joint status report (Doc. 9) filed by the parties. The parties will be directed to file an updated joint status report addressing the relevant time-frame for this litigation.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. A Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Conference is set before the undersigned on March 19, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. in Redding, California.
2. The parties shall submit to the court, no later than seven (7) days before the Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Conference, a joint status report addressing the following matters:
a. Anticipated motions and the scheduling thereof;
b. The proposed discovery plan developed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f);
c. The potential for settlement and specific recommendations regarding settlement procedures and timing, including whether a settlement conference should be scheduled and if so when, and whether referral to the court's Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program (see Local Rule 16-271) is appropriate in this case;
d. Future proceedings, including setting appropriate cut-off dates for discovery and law and motion and the scheduling of a pretrial conference and trial;
e. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due to the relative simplicity or complexity of the action or proceedings;
f. Whether the counsel will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned to this matter acting as settlement judge and waiving any disqualifications by virtue of her so acting, or whether they prefer to have a Settlement Conference before another judge; and
g. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of this matter.
3. Counsel are informed that telephonic appearances through Court Call are acceptable for the status conference.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.