Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Johnson v. Jbeily

April 14, 2010

SCOTT N. JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ELIAS H. JBEILY, ET AL., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows U.S. Magistrate Judge

STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER

Each of the parties in the above-captioned case has filed a "Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge." See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). According to E.D. Cal. R. 305, both the district court judge assigned to the case and the magistrate judge must approve the reference to the magistrate judge. The undersigned hereby approves the reference.

The parties have filed a joint statement regarding scheduling. Accordingly, the court makes the following findings and orders:

SERVICE OF PROCESS

All defendants have been served and no further service is permitted except with leave of court, good cause having been shown.*fn1

JOINDER OF PARTIES/AMENDMENTS

No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted except with leave of court, good cause having been shown.

JURISDICTION/VENUE

Jurisdiction is undisputed and is hereby found to be proper, as is venue.

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULES

All law and motion except as to discovery is left open, save and except that it shall be conducted so as to be completed by April 21, 2011. The word "completed" in this context means that all law and motion matters must be heard by the above date. Counsel are cautioned to refer to the local rules regarding the requirements for noticing such motions on the court's regularly scheduled law and motion calendar. This paragraph does not preclude motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications, and is subject to any special scheduling set forth in the "MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS" paragraph below.

The parties should keep in mind that the purpose of law and motion is to narrow and refine the legal issues raised by the case, and to dispose of by pretrial motion those issues that are susceptible to resolution without trial. To accomplish that purpose, the parties need to identify and fully research the issues presented by the case, and then examine those issues in light of the evidence gleaned through discovery. If it appears to counsel after examining the legal issues and facts that an issue can be resolved by pretrial motion, counsel are to file the appropriate motion by the law and motion cutoff set forth supra.

ALL PURELY LEGAL ISSUES ARE TO BE RESOLVED BY TIMELY PRETRIAL MOTION.

Counsel are reminded that motions in limine are procedural devices designed to address the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.