IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 6, 2009
IGNATIUS ANYANWU, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
PROGRESSIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
ORDER SETTING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE
Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se with a claim filed in the Small Claims Division of the Sacramento County Superior Court on July 27, 2009. One of three defendants removed the action to this court on September 3, 2009.*fn1 The case has been assigned to United States District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. and has been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21) for all purposes encompassed by that provision.*fn2
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 11, 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 either by counsel or, if proceeding in propria persona, on his or her own behalf. A party proceeding in propria persona may not represent any other party proceeding in propria persona. A party may appear at the conference 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. Plaintiffs shall file and serve their status report on or before November 30, 2009, and defendants shall file and serve a status report on or before December 4, 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 plaintiffs are informed that failure to file a timely status report or failure to appear at the status conference in person or telephonically 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.
5. Plaintiffs are advised that Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a defendant may be dismissed if service of process is not accomplished on the defendant within 120 days from the date the complaint is filed. If plaintiffs have not yet served defendant Lawyers Incorporation Service and defendant Michael Praunds, and plaintiffs intend to proceed against these defendants, service should be effected immediately.
6. The defendant who removed this action from state court shall serve a copy of this order upon all defendants subsequently appearing or subsequently joined and shall file and serve a certificate reflecting such service.