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.

Botello v. Morgan Hill Unified School District

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


December 23, 2009

ZULEIMA BOTELLO, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Howard R. Lloyd United States Magistrate Judge

NOT FOR CITATION

ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Upon filing, this action was scheduled for an initial case management conference on September 22, 2009. On September 15, 2009, the parties filed a joint case management statement advising the court that they had not discussed discovery or case scheduling as they wished to wait until after this court had clarified the scope of the complaint through defendants' motion to dismiss, which was still pending at that time. The parties also indicated that they were considering a request for an Early Settlement Conference with a Magistrate Judge. In addition, plaintiff noted that she was considering adding one defendant and dismissing the other nine defendants not yet served.

(Docket No. 17.) The court continued the case management conference to December 1, 2009 and5 then once more to December 29, 2009, on account of its unavailability. (Docket Nos. 20, 23.)

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss in part on November 18, 2009, giving plaintiff fourteen days to file an amended complaint. (Docket No. 27.) The parties then stipulated to a two-week extension of this time on grounds that plaintiff needed more time to identify a new defendant-presumably the same one mentioned in the joint case management statement filed two months before-which the court granted. (Docket No. 29.) Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on December 17, 2009 (Docket No. 31), and the parties took part in an ADR telephone conference on December 22, 2009.

The parties have now filed an updated joint case management conference statement that reads much like their version from September. The parties again advise the court that they have not conducted initial disclosures, have not decided upon an ADR process, and have not discussed dates for discovery or case scheduling. Plaintiff also states that she still has not served the same set of defendants that she was considering dismissing in September.

Good cause appearing, the Case Management Conference set for December 29, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2 is hereby CONTINUED to January 26, 2010 at 1:30pm in Courtroom 2, 5th For the Northern District of California floor of the United States District Court, San Jose. The parties shall submit an updated Joint Case Management Statement no later than January 19, 2010. Counsel are advised that the court intends to set discovery and trial dates at this conference. Furthermore, if plaintiff has failed to serve the original nine defendants that she has still not served by January 26, 2010, the court will dismiss the action without prejudice as to those defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20091223

© 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.