UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 4, 2009
JOSEPH CAMPOS, PLAINTIFF,
CITY OF MERCED ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REGARDING STATUS CONFERENCE
A pretrial conference was scheduled to be heard on July 29, 2009. Juan Falcon appeared personally on behalf of the Plaintiff, Joseph Campos ("Plaintiff") and Dale Allen appeared telephonically on behalf of the Defendants, City of Merced and Officer Horn ("Defendants"). In addition to noting deficiencies in the pretrial statements, the Court also determined that the case was not ready for trial because there were outstanding legal issues.
Specifically, the Court noted that in the pretrial statement, Defendants had indicated that Officer Horn is entitled to qualified immunity for the 1983 claim and California statutory immunity claims for the state claims. Defendants further asserted that the City of Merced is immune from liability under the California Tort Claims Act, and that no custom, policy or practice of violating civil rights exist that would permit liability under the Monell doctrine. Finally, Defendants alleged that there may be a statute of limitations issue and that there is no support for Plaintiff's conspiracy claims under the conspiracy doctrine. In reply, Plaintiff indicated a likelihood that the Monell claims and the conspiracy claims would be dismissed.
In light of these issues, the Court set another status conference which will be held on August 27, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. to allow the parties to meet and confer regarding the issues outlined above. The parties shall note that the Court expects a resolution on the status of the issues at the next status conference. At a minimum, Plaintiff shall identify which causes of action will not be pursued and file dismissal papers if appropriate. Similarly, Defendants shall identify which defenses they will raise in response to the remaining causes of action. The parties shall submit a joint status report no later than five court days prior to the next status conference addressing the status of each of the issues listed above. If dispositive motions will be filed, the parties shall propose filing dates, as well as new dates for the pretrial conference and the trial. The parties are advised that there should be sixty (60) days between the hearing on any dispositive motions and sixty days (60) between the pretrial conference and the trial. The parties are advised that failure to timely comply with this order and the Local Rules may result in the imposition of sanctions including, but not limited to, monetary sanctions, exclusion of evidence, or dismissal of the action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.