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. Bug Man Pest Control Inc.

July 28, 2010

SCOTT N. JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BUG MAN PEST CONTROL INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A BUGMAN PEST CONTROL INC.; DALE A. BURKE; BARBARA BURKE, DEFENDANTS.



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

STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER

The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled for August 9, 2010, is vacated since the parties' Joint Status Report filed on July 20, 2010 ("JSR"), indicates that the following Order should issue.

SERVICE, JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES, AMENDMENT

No further service, joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted, except with leave of Court for good cause shown.

DISCOVERY

All discovery shall be completed by March 14, 2012. In this context, "completed" means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate orders, if necessary, and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been complied with or, alternatively, the time allowed for such compliance shall have expired.*fn1

Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(c)(i)'s initial expert witness disclosure requirements on or before October 14, 2011, and any contradictory and/or rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under Rule 26(a)(2)(c)(ii) on or before November 14, 2011.

MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

The last hearing date for motions shall be May 14, 2012, at 9:00 a.m.*fn2

Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 230(b). Opposition papers shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 230(c). Failure to comply with this local rule may be deemed consent to the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily. Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 652-53 (9th Cir. 1994). Further, failure to timely oppose a summary judgment motion may result in the granting of that motion if the movant shifts the burden to the non-movant to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact remains for trial. Cf. Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 1995).

Absent highly unusual circumstances, reconsideration of a motion is appropriate only where:

(1) The Court is presented with newly discovered evidence that could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the filing of the party's motion or opposition papers;

(2) The Court committed clear error or the initial decision was ...


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.