The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER
READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTAINS IMPORTANT DATES THAT THE COURT WILL STRICTLY ENFORCE AND WITH WHICH ALL COUNSEL AND PARTIES MUST COMPLY.*fn1 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF MONETARY AND ALL OTHER SANCTIONS WITHIN THE POWER OF THE COURT, INCLUDING DISMISSAL OR AN ORDER OF JUDGMENT.
This matter was scheduled for a status (pretrial scheduling) conference to take place on December 1, 2011. In light of the status reports filed by the parties (Dkt. Nos. 78, 80), the undersigned issues the following scheduling order without physically conducting the conference:
In short, plaintiff alleges claims against several defendants who participated in a traffic stop involving plaintiff that led to plaintiff's arrest and the towing of her motor vehicle. Plaintiff has sued the California Highway Patrol ("CHP") and two of its officers, Brent Mangham and Michael Walling. Plaintiff has also sued the parties who towed plaintiff's vehicle, Mike's Towing Service, Inc. and Michael D. Olivarez (collectively, "Towing Defendants").
Plaintiff served the CHP with process, and the CHP subsequently filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims against it. On August 4, 2011, the undersigned entered findings and recommendations that recommended the dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the CHP with prejudice (Dkt. No. 38). Those findings and recommendations have not yet been resolved by the district judge assigned to this case. However, if those findings and recommendations are adopted, the CHP will be dismissed from the action.
Plaintiff served the Towing Defendants with process, and the Towing Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims against them. On August 26, 2011, the undersigned entered findings and recommendations that recommended the dismissal of some of plaintiff's claims against the Towing Defendants (Dkt. No. 52). Those findings and recommendations have not yet been resolved by the district judge assigned to this case. The Towing Defendants filed an answer to plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 60).
In regards to Mangham and Walling, the undersigned determined that plaintiff had not properly served these defendants with process. (See Order, Oct. 28, 2011, Dkt. No. 70.) However, Mangham and Walling have filed an answer to plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 75).
JOINDER OF PARTIES/AMENDMENTS
No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings will be permitted except with leave of court and upon a showing of good cause.
Jurisdiction and venue are undisputed and are hereby found to be proper. See 28 U.S.C. ...