IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 27, 2012
SCOTT N. JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF,
BHAKTA SURESHBHAI, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A POSTAL ANNEX, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
On August 23, 2012, this action was referred to the undersigned based on the consent of the parties, and all hearing dates then set before the district judge were vacated. See Dckt. No. 12; see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 305; 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Because this case has not yet been scheduled pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a status (pretrial scheduling) conference will be set before the undersigned.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. A status (pretrial scheduling) conference is set for September 19, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 24 before the undersigned.
2. In light of the parties' August 23, 2012 joint status report, Dckt. No. 11, the parties need not file a further status report in advance of the status conference. However, if the parties elect to file a revised status report, any such report shall be filed on or before September 5, 2012.
3. All parties are reminded of their continuing duty to notify chambers immediately of any settlement or other disposition. See L.R. 160. In addition, the parties are cautioned that pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), opposition to granting of a motion must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. The Local Rule further provides that "[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party." Moreover, Local Rule 230(I) provides that failure to appear may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to the motion or may result in sanctions. Finally, Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court."
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.