IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 11, 2009
SARATHY S. AMANJEE, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
ORDER CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE
Before the court is a stipulation and proposed order postponing the scheduling conference set for May 15, 2009, before the undersigned. Because the stipulation does not comply with Local Rule 7-131,*fn1 the filing is construed as defendants' request for continuance.
The May 15, 2009 status conference was set by order filed March 16, 2009. Defendants seek a continuance on the ground that the parties are discussing the best manner in which to proceed with this lawsuit but have not yet resolved a threshold issue regarding the possible joinder of an additional party. The court is concerned about the stated ground for the requested continuance.
On March 13, 2009, the district judge adopted the findings and recommendations issued by the undersigned in February 2009 and denied defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The March 13, 2009 order triggered a 10-day period for defendants to file their responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). Defendants have neither filed a responsive pleading nor requested an extension of time to do so, and their responsive pleading is now long overdue.
Anticipating that defendants would file a timely responsive pleading, the undersigned set a status conference for the purpose of setting deadlines for any discovery that might be needed, for the filing, briefing, and hearing of cross-motions for summary judgment, and for the setting of dates for pretrial conference and trial. See Order filed Mar. 16, 2009 (Doc. No. 21). Because defendants have not filed a responsive pleading, the undersigned will continue the status conference, with modifications to the previous order setting status conference.
Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendants shall file their responsive pleading within ten calendar days after this order is served.
2. The stipulation and proposed order filed May 1, 2009 (Doc. No. 22) is construed as defendants' request for continuance and, so construed, is granted.
3. The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference set for Friday May 15, 2009, before the undersigned is continued to Friday June 26, 2009, at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 27.
4. Each party is required to appear at the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference by counsel or, if acting without counsel, on his or her own behalf. No party proceeding pro se may represent any other party proceeding pro se. Any party may appear at the status conference telephonically. To arrange telephonic appearance at the status conference, parties shall contact Pete Buzo, the courtroom deputy of the undersigned magistrate judge, at (916) 930-4128, no later than three days prior to the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference.
5. Each side shall file a status report that addresses the following topics:
a. Proposed amendments to pleadings and the scheduling thereof;
b. Anticipated discovery, if any, and the scheduling thereof;
c. Anticipated motions and the scheduling thereof; and
d. A proposed schedule for all future proceedings, including the setting of appropriate cut-off dates for amendments to pleadings, discovery, and law and motion, and for the scheduling of a final pretrial conference and trial.
6. Plaintiffs' status report shall be signed by all plaintiffs and shall be filed and served on or before June 12, 2009.
7. Defendants' status report shall be filed and served on or before June 19, 2009.