UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
May 18, 2011
OSCAR MUNOZ CORTEZ,
JEFFREY LYNN JOHNSON; ROOF GUARD ROOFING COMPANY, INC.; AND ROOF GUARD COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: United States District Judge Lucy H. Koh
FURTHER ORDER REQUIRING
SUBMISSION OF JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
United States District Court For the Northern District of California
This case was filed on August 9, 2010, and was set for an initial Case Management Conference before the undersigned Judge on November 24, 2010. On November 17, 2010, the 20 parties submitted a joint case management statement stating that all parties consented to proceed 21 for all purposes before a Magistrate Judge. Dkt. No. 11. Accordingly, the case was reassigned to 22 Magistrate Judge Lloyd on November 19, 2010. On March 25, 2010, Judge Lloyd set a Case Management Conference and ordered that the parties file a statement either consenting or declining 24 to proceed before him by April 5, 2011. On April 4, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a statement 25 consenting to proceed before Judge Lloyd, but the Defendants filed a statement declining to 26 proceed before him.
On April 7, 2011, the Court issued an Order stating that it wished to
"set a case schedule as
soon as possible to prohibit any further delay," and ordering the
parties to submit a Joint Case Management Statement by April 15, 2011
"setting forth a proposed case schedule through trial."
forth a proposed case schedule. Plaintiff's counsel indicates that the parties may have settled this 3 matter, but Defendants content that no settlement has been finalized.
On April 16, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Case Management Statement which failed to set
The Court hereby advances the date of the Case Management Conference from August 3, 2011 to June 8, 2011 at 2 p.m. The parties shall file a Joint Case Management Statement by June 1, 2011. In the Joint Case Management Statement, the parties shall confirm whether or not the case 7 has settled. If the case has settled, the parties shall indicate when a stipulated dismissal will be 8 filed, or, if a fairness hearing is required, propose a schedule for the fairness hearing. If the case 9 has not settled, the parties are ordered to submit a proposed case schedule including all necessary 10 deadlines (including dates for class certification, discovery cutoff, dispositive motions, pretrial 11 hedule, the Court will set one conference and trial). If the parties do not submit a proposed sc 12 without their input. If Plaintiff's counsel is unable to communicate with his client in order to 13 prepare the Joint Case Management Statement, he should indicate this in the Joint Case Management Statement and submit a motion to withdraw from the case, if appropriate, by June 1, 2011.
The parties are reminded that failure to comply with the Local Rules and this Court's Orders can result in sanctions, and that failure to prosecute this case can subject the matter to 18 dismissal for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.