Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Daniel v. Oaks

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 18, 2009

MELVIN DE VAN DANIEL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
B. OAKS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

This action has been assigned to the Honorable William B. Shubb, U.S. District Judge, and has been referred to the undersigned for all purposes described in Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). Defendants have now filed an answer.

Pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Local Rule 16-240, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The parties shall submit to the court and serve by mail on all other parties, no later than September 28, 2009, a status report addressing the following matters:

a. Service of process;

b. Possible joinder of additional parties;

c. Any expected or desired amendment of the pleadings;

d. Jurisdiction and venue;

e. Anticipated motions and the scheduling thereof;

f. Anticipated discovery and the scheduling thereof;

g. Future proceedings, including setting appropriate cutoff dates for discovery and law and motion and the scheduling of a pretrial conference and trial;

h. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due to the relative simplicity or complexity of the action or proceedings;

i. Whether the case is related to any other case, including matters in bankruptcy;

j. Whether the counsel will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned to this matter acting as settlement judge and waiving any disqualifications by virtue of his so acting, or whether they prefer to have a Settlement Conference before another judge;

k. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of this matter.

2. Plaintiff and counsel are reminded of their continuing duty to notify chambers immediately of any settlement or other disposition (see Local Rule 16-160). In addition, the parties are cautioned that pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(c), opposition to the granting of a motion must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. The Rule further provides that "[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party." Moreover, Local Rule 78-230(j) provides that failure to appear may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to the motion or may result in sanctions. Finally, Local Rule 11-110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court."

20090818

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.