UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION
February 14, 2012
FRANK ORR, PLAINTIFF,
HERNANDEZ, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justin L. Quackenbush Senior United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION SIGNED FEBRUARY 6, 2012 AS MOOT
On February 8, 2012, the court received Plaintiff's second Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 120) signed February 6, 2012. Plaintiff apparently mailed this Motion after receiving Defendants' February 2 opposition to his first Motion for Sanctions and prior to receiving the court's Order entered February 3, 2012. The court has ordered the Defendant to comply with the court's February 3 Order on discovery by no later than February 21, 2012. Plaintiff's renewed Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 120) is thus premature and is DENIED with leave to renew.
In addition, Plaintiff's asks in his Motion "Can Plaintiff consider a bench trial?" Both Plaintiff and Defendant Hernandez have filed jury demands in this matter. ECF No. 43 at 22; ECF No. 57. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(d) states that "A proper demand may be withdrawn only if the parties consent." Thus, in order for this matter to proceed as a bench trial, both parties would need to mutually consent to the withdrawal of their jury demands. The court has set March 15, 2012, as the final deadline for the filing of dispositive motions.
If dispositive motions do not resolve this matter, the court will promptly set a pretrial hearing to address trial procedures (including whether the parties wish to withdraw their jury demands), the remaining deadlines, and whether to appoint counsel to assist Plaintiff at trial.
Justin L. Quackenbush
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.