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.

Mohit Randhawa Aka Harpal v. Skylux Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 15, 2012

MOHIT RANDHAWA AKA HARPAL
SINGH; SHANNON CALLNET PVT LTD, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
SKYLUX INC., INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE, INC., MUJEEB PUZHAKKARAILLATH, SKYLUX TELELINK PVT LTD; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

In a Joint Status Report filed August 10, 2012, the parties request clarification as to whether 1) the Skylux defendants' motion to dismiss filed on September 8, 2010 (Docket No. 90) was denied on the merits; and 2) whether the court intended the September 4, 2012 conference to constitute a scheduling conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b).

In its October 18, 2010 Order, the court denied the Skylux defendants' motion to dismiss because, in the same Order, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to stay the entire case due to the overlap between the claims against Interactive and the Skylux defendants. (See Docket No. 102 at 7.) The court never addressed the merits of the Skylux defendants' motion to dismiss and thus the motion was denied without prejudice to it being refiled once the stay was lifted. The stay has now been lifted and the Skylux defendants may file any motion provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Given the procedural history in this case, the court has yet to hold a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference pursuant to Rule 16(b) and the court intended to set the necessary deadlines and pretrial conference and trial dates at the September 4, 2012 conference. Although the Skylux defendants suggest the court should wait to hold a Rule 16(b) conference until after the court rules on any motion to dismiss the Skylux defendants may file, good case management requires the court to establish deadlines to ensure this case proceeds now that the stay has been lifted.

The court will therefore continue the September 4, 2012 conference to October 1, 2012 to give the parties adequate time to confer, agree on a discovery plan pursuant to Rule 26(f), and prepare a joint status report. The parties are directed to the court's August 20, 2009 Order Re: Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference (Docket No. 4) in preparing their Joint Status Report.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the scheduling conference set for September 4, 2012 is continued to October 1, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. and the parties shall file a Joint Status Report no later than September 17, 2012.

20120815

© 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.