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.

Amatrone v. Messina

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


December 7, 2009

ROBERT P. AMATRONE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
STEVE MESSINA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE

This matter came before the court on December 4, 2009, for Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference pursuant to the court's order filed October 6, 2009. Plaintiff Robert P. Amatrone, proceeding with this action pro se, appeared on his own behalf. Kevin E. Gilbert, Esq. appeared on behalf of the City of Benicia defendants.

Upon consideration of the parties' timely filed status reports and their statements in open court, the court continued the status conference.

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is continued to February 5, 2010, at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 27, before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd.

2. Parties may appear at the status 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. A joint supplemental status report, or separate supplemental status reports, shall be filed on or before February 1, 2010. The status report(s) shall advise the court whether an early settlement conference is desired by all parties and shall address the following matters:

a. Anticipated motions and the scheduling thereof;

b. Anticipated discovery and the scheduling thereof, including disclosure of expert witnesses;

c. 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;

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

e. Whether the case is related to any other case;

f. Whether the parties will stipulate to the assigned magistrate judge 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;

g. Whether the parties intend to consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge; and

h. Any other matters that may aid in the just and expeditious disposition of this action.

4. Failure to file a timely status report or to appear at the status conference in person or telephonically may result in sanctions. See Local Rules 110 and 183.

20091207

© 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.