IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 6, 2012
DONALD ATKINSON, PLAINTIFF,
COUNTY OF EL DORADO, ET AL.,
This matter came before the court on April 6, 2012, for a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference. Beatriz Berumen, Esq. appeared for defendants. Plaintiff Donald Atkinson did not appear and did not file a Status Conference Report.
For the reasons stated on the record, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference in this matter is continued to July 6, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27 before the undersigned;
2. Any party may appear at the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference telephonically if the party pre-arranges such appearance by contacting Pete Buzo, the courtroom deputy of the undersigned magistrate judge, at (916) 930-4128 at least 48 hours before the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference. A land line telephone number must be provided;
3. Plaintiff shall file and serve a status report on or before June 22, 2012, and defendants shall file and serve status reports on or before June 29, 2012. Each party's status report shall address all of the following matters:
a. Progress of service of process;
b. Possible joinder of additional parties;
c. Possible amendment of the pleadings;
d. Jurisdiction and venue;
e. Anticipated motions and the scheduling thereof;
f. Anticipated discovery and the scheduling thereof, including disclosure of expert witnesses;
g. Future proceedings, including the setting of appropriate cut-off dates for discovery and for law and motion, and the scheduling of a final pretrial conference and trial;
h. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due to the relative simplicity or complexity of the action;
i. Whether the case is related to any other case, including matters in bankruptcy;
j. Whether the parties will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned to this matter acting as settlement judge, waiving any disqualification by virtue of his so acting, or whether they prefer to have a Settlement Conference before another magistrate judge;
k. Whether the parties intend to consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge; and
l. Any other matters that may aid in the just and expeditious disposition of this action;
4. Plaintiff is advised, again, that failure to file a timely status report, or failure to appear at the status conference either in person or telephonically, may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and as a sanction for failure to comply with court orders and applicable rules. See Local Rules 110 and 183.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.