IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 5, 2009
ROBERT P. AMATRONE, PLAINTIFF,
STEVE MESSINA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
ORDER RE-SETTING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE
Upon removal of this action from the Solano County Superior Court on August 6, 2008, a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference was set for September 26, 2008. The Status Conference was vacated pending resolution of defendants' subsequent motion for more definite statement. Defendants having now filed an answer to plaintiff's complaint, the Status Conference will be re-set.
Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for December 4, 2009, at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 27, before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd.
2. Each party shall appear at the Status Conference by counsel or, if proceeding in propria persona, on his or her own behalf. A party may appear at the conference either in person or telephonically. To arrange telephonic appearance, the party shall contact Pete Buzo, the courtroom deputy of the undersigned magistrate judge, at (916) 930-4128 no later than three days before the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference.
3. Plaintiff shall file and serve a status report on or before November 20, 2009, and defendants shall file and serve a status report on or before November 30, 2009. Each status report shall address all of the following matters:
a. Progress of service of process;
b. Possible joinder of additional parties;
c. Possible amendment of the pleadings;
d. Jurisdiction and venue;
e. Anticipated motions and the scheduling thereof;
f. Anticipated discovery and the scheduling thereof, including disclosure of expert witnesses;
g. Future proceedings, including the setting of appropriate cut-off dates for discovery and for law and motion, and the scheduling of a final pretrial conference and trial;
h. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due to the relative simplicity or complexity of the action;
i. Whether the case is related to any other case, including matters in bankruptcy;
j. Whether the parties will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned to this matter acting as settlement judge, waiving any disqualification by virtue of his so acting, or whether they prefer to have a Settlement Conference before another magistrate judge;
k. Whether the parties intend to consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge; and
l. Any other matters that may aid in the just and expeditious disposition of this action.
4. The pro se plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file a timely status report or failure to appear at the status conference may result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for lack of prosecution and as a sanction for failure to comply with court orders and applicable rules. See Local Rules 11-110 and 83-183.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.