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.

Denly R. Becker; the Becker Trust Dated March 25, 1991 v. Wells Fargo Bank

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


April 24, 2012

DENLY R. BECKER; THE BECKER TRUST DATED MARCH 25, 1991, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, INC.; WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION; DOES 1-20, DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER

United States Senior District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton recently resolved a motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiff. (Order, Mar. 29, 2012, Dkt. No. 87.) Because the undersigned anticipated that resolution of plaintiff's motion for reconsideration would directly impact plaintiff's pending motion to amend his pleading and file a third amended complaint (see Dkt. No. 70), the undersigned vacated the hearing on plaintiff's motion to amend pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration (see Order, Oct. 28, 2011, at 2, Dkt. No. 83).*fn1 In vacating that hearing date, the court advised plaintiff as follows: "Following the complete resolution of plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 59), and depending on how that motion is resolved, if plaintiff wishes to proceed with his Motion to Amend (Dkt. No. 70), plaintiff may re-notice that Motion and set a new hearing date or file a different motion to amend." (Id. at 3.)*fn2

Plaintiff has not yet re-noticed his motion to amend the Second Amended Complaint or filed a new or revised motion to amend. Given plaintiff's pro se status and the relatively confusing logistics surrounding the various pending and recently resolved motions, the undersigned sets a status conference to address the progression of this case. The court also permits, in the alternative, that plaintiff may re-notice his motion to amend or file a new or revised motion to amend. If plaintiff re-notices his motion to amend or files a new motion to amend prior to the date set for the status conference, the court may vacate the status conference.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. A status conference in this case shall be held on May 24, 2012, at 10:00

a.m.

2. The parties need not file status reports in advance of the status conference.

3. If plaintiff re-notices his motion to amend his pleading or files a new motion to amend prior to the May 24, 2012 status conference, the court may vacate the status conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.