UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 9, 2012
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable A. Howard Matz, U.S. District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Present: The Honorable A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Stephen Montes Not Reported
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)
Following numerous extensions and delays, the bench trial in this case is scheduled for April 3, 2012. The Court is not willing to continue this date. After the November 28, 2011, status conference, the Court scheduled a pre-trial conference for March 19, 2012. (Dkt. 129 at 1 n.2.) The Court ordered the parties "to comply with Local Rule 16 and file the necessary pre-trial briefs and memoranda." (Dkt. 129 at 1 n.2.)
Local Rule 16 requires the parties to separatelyfile (1) a Witness List, and (2) a Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law. In addition, the parties are required to file (1) a Joint Exhibit List and (2) a Joint Pre-Trial Conference Order. The Court's Scheduling and Case Management Order of July 8, 2009, repeats these requirements. (Dkt. 12.)
Defendants have filed a Witness List, a Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law, and an Exhibit List. Pro se Plaintiff Richard Lee has not filed these documents. The parties have also not filed a Joint Pre-Trial Conference Order. Defendants state that this is because Plaintiff has not prepared a draft of this document as he is required to do pursuant to Local Rule 16--7. (Dkt. 138 at 2.) Similarly, the parties have not filed a Joint Exhibit List. Defendants state that this is because Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants' request to provide the necessary information. (Dkt. 141 at 1.)
RICHARD LEE v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.
The Court's Scheduling and Case Management Order states that a plaintiff's non-compliance with the pre-trial filing requirements will result in a dismissal for failure to prosecute. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff Richard Lee to show cause in writing, by no later than March 16, 2012, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Initials of Preparer SMO
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.