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.

Tamsco Properties, LLC; Jkr Laser Investment, LLC v. Loral Langemeier; Live Out Loud

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


May 29, 2012

TAMSCO PROPERTIES, LLC; JKR LASER INVESTMENT, LLC;
SURFER BEACH, LLC; TO BE DETERMINED, LLC, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
LORAL LANGEMEIER; LIVE OUT LOUD, INC., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

On May 4, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel defendants to serve their initial disclosures in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a), and noticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned on June 6, 2012. Dckt. No. 80. Plaintiffs request that defendants be compelled to serve the disclosures despite defendants' objections thereto, which are based on defendants' position that plaintiffs improperly joined a variety of claims in this action. Id. at 3, 6.

Then, on May 21, 2012, defendants filed a motion to sever the claims they contend were improperly joined by plaintiffs. Dckt. No. 84. That motion is scheduled to be heard before the assigned district judge on June 18, 2012.*fn1 Dckt. No. 84.

In their opposition to plaintiffs' motion to compel, defendants state that "the issues framed by plaintiffs' motion [to compel] are the same as those framed by defendants' Motion to Sever," since "Defendants only objected to serving Rule 26(a) disclosures because the case improperly bundled different claims, of different parties, regarding different investments, in different entities." Dckt. No. 85 at 2. Therefore, defendants request that the motion to compel be continued to the date the motion to sever will be heard. Id.

Because it appears that the court's ruling on defendants' motion to sever may resolve the issues set forth in plaintiffs' motion to compel, Dckt. No. 80, that motion is denied without prejudice and the June 6, 2012 hearing thereon is vacated. If the court's ruling on defendants' motion to sever and the subsequent meet and confer process between the parties (as required by Local Rule 251(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1)) do not resolve the issues set forth in plaintiffs' motion to compel, plaintiffs may re-notice the motion for hearing in accordance with Local Rule 251.


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.