IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 7, 2010
MILTON CHARLES VAN NOLAND AND JOY GARNER, PLAINTIFFS,
ERIC S. PELLETIER AND "GRRR! LIMITED,"
ORDER SETTING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE
Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se with this civil action. On July 22, 2009, the action was removed from the Sacramento County Superior Court by the defendants, and the action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) for all purposes encompassed by that provision.
Defendants filed an answer to plaintiffs' complaint on July 29, 2009. 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 May 14, 2010, 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. Any party may make its appearance 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 48 hours before the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference.
3. Plaintiffs shall file and serve a status report on or before April 30, 2010, and defendants shall file and serve a status report on or before May 7, 2010. 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 parties are advised that failure to file and serve a timely status report or failure to appear at the status conference may result in an order imposing appropriate sanctions. See Local Rules 110 and 183.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.