Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Yolanda Tarr v. Midland Credit Management


April 4, 2011


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


The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled for April 11, 2011, is vacated since the parties' Joint Status Report filed on March 28, 2011 ("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.


All discovery shall be completed by December 5, 2011. 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.

Each party shall comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(c)(i)'s initial expert witness disclosure requirements on or before July 8, 2011, and any contradictory and/or rebuttal expert disclosure authorized under Rule 26(a)(2)(c)(ii) on or before August 7, 2011.


The last hearing date for motions shall be February 21, 2012, at 9:00 a.m.*fn1

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).

The parties are cautioned that an untimely motion characterized as a motion in limine may be summarily denied. A motion in limine addresses the admissibility of evidence.


The final pretrial conference is set for April 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. The parties are cautioned that the lead attorney who WILL TRY THE CASE for each party shall attend the final pretrial conference. In addition, all persons representing themselves and appearing in propria persona must attend the pretrial conference.

The parties are warned that non-trial worthy issues could be eliminated sua sponte "[i]f the pretrial conference discloses that no material facts are in dispute and that the undisputed facts entitle one of the parties to judgment as a matter of law." Portsmouth Square v. S'holders Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 1985).

The parties shall file a JOINT pretrial statement no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the final pretrial conference.*fn2 The joint pretrial statement shall specify the issues for trial, including a description of each theory of liability and affirmative defense, and shall estimate the length of the trial.*fn3 The Court uses the parties' joint pretrial statement to prepare its final pretrial order and could issue the final pretrial order without holding the scheduled final pretrial conference. See Mizwicki v. Helwig, 196 F.3d 828, 833 (7th Cir. 1999) ("There is no requirement that the court hold a pretrial conference.").

If possible, at the time of filing the joint pretrial statement counsel shall also email it in a format compatible with WordPerfect to:

TRIAL SETTING Trial shall commence at 9:00 a.m. on July 31, 2012. IT IS SO ORDERED.

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.