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.

Zieske v. Vision Financial Network

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


July 16, 2010

ROBERT ZIESKE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
VISION FINANCIAL NETWORK; AMERICAN BROKERS CONDUIT, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION; SHAHRAM YEKTARAD, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND MICHAEL AZAD, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE

Plaintiff and Defendant Michael Azad's Joint Status Report ("JSR") filed July 12, 2010, reveals this case is not ready to be fully scheduled. Plaintiff states in the JSR that all Defendants have been served. (Docket No. 15, 2:8.) Plaintiff further states: "Defendant VISION FINANCIAL NETWORK has not appeared and Plaintiff has requested default against this defendant. Defendant YEKTARAD has been served and has not yet appeared. American Brokers Conduit, Inc. has filed for bankruptcy." (Id., 2:3-6.) However, Plaintiff fails to provide information about precisely what Plaintiff will do to prosecute his case against each defendant. Such information should be in a status report.

Plaintiff also states: "Possible joinder of Nationstar as a Doe Defendant" but fails to say anything about when this could occur. This information should also be included in a status report. Since it is unclear how and when Plaintiff will prosecute his case against each defendant, the status conference scheduled for July 26, 2010, is continued to September 20, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. A joint status report shall be filed fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference in which Plaintiff shall provide more detailed information about the status of the case. Further, Plaintiff is notified under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 41(b) that if a defendant has not been served with process, the unserved defendant may be dismissed. If a certificate of service is not filed forthwith proving service, it will be assumed that no service has been made and a dismissal order could issue.

20100716

© 1992-2010 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.