Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Jacqueline M. Taylor v. Employment Development Department

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 28, 2012

JACQUELINE M. TAYLOR, PLAINTIFF,
v.
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AND DOES 1-100, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

On March 12, 2012, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 18), which no longer names certain defendants who were named in plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Specifically, the Second Amended Complaint does not name the State of California or Pamela Harris as defendants. Also on March 12, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the "State of California Et AL" and Pamela Harris from this case without prejudice (Dkt. No. 19).

The undersigned construes plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss the "State of California Et AL" and Pamela Harris as a notice of voluntarily dismissal filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which was effective upon filing because no defendant had filed an answer to the First Amended Complaint or a motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (providing that "the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment . . . ."); United States v. Real Property Located at 475 Martin Lane, Beverly Hills, CA, 545 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008). This order acknowledges the dismissal of the State of California and Pamela Harris as defendants from this action.

The only remaining defendants in this action are the Employment Development Department ("EDD") and Does 1 through 100. On March 21, 2012, EDD filed an answer to plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 23). Because EDD has answered the operative complaint, the undersigned sets a status (pretrial scheduling) conference in this case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants State of California and Pamela Harris are dismissed from this action without prejudice.

2. Within 30 days of the date of this order, the parties shall meet and confer about the mandatory disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

3. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference shall be held on May 24, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25. All parties shall appear by counsel or in person if acting without counsel.

4. Not later than seven days prior to the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference, the parties shall file a joint status report as provided in the Order Setting Status Conference (Dkt. No. 3), briefly describing the case and addressing the following topics:

a. Service of process;

b. Possible joinder of additional parties;

c. Any expected or desired amendment of the pleadings;

d. Jurisdiction and venue;

e. Anticipated motions and their scheduling;

f. The report required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 outlining the proposed discovery plan and its scheduling, including disclosure of expert witnesses;

g. Future proceedings, including setting appropriate cut-off dates for discovery and law and motion, and the scheduling of a pretrial conference and trial;

h. Special procedures, if any;

i. Estimated trial time;

j. Modifications of standard pretrial procedures due to the simplicity or complexity of the proceedings.

k. Whether the case is related to any other cases, including any bankruptcy case;

l. Whether a settlement conference should be scheduled;

m. Whether counsel will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned to this matter acting as settlement judge and waive disqualification by virtue of his so acting, or whether they prefer to have a settlement conference conducted before another judge;

n. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition

of this matter.

5. Failing to obey federal or local rules, or orders of this court, may result in dismissal of this action. This court will construe pro se pleadings liberally, but pro se litigants must comply with the procedural rules. See Local Rules 110, 183(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120328

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



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.