IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 9, 2012
DAVID JEROME OLIVER SR. ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER, ET AL.,
ORDER SETTING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE
Plaintiffs, David Oliver, Genesia Oliver, Chalise Wilborn and Mary Oliver, proceeding pro se, commenced this action on September 13, 2012, by filing a complaint and requesting leave to proceed informa pauperis. On November 2, 2012, however, plaintiffs paid the required filing fee and the Clerk issued summons as to one defendant. The case has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).
Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for Friday, March 15, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27 before the undersigned;
2. Within fourteen (14) days after plaintiffs are served with this order, plaintiffs shall serve upon each defendant one copy of this order, as well as a copy of the Notice of Availability of a Magistrate Judge and the related form that were served on plaintiffs by the Clerk on November 2, 2012; within five (5) days after serving the required copies on the defendants, plaintiffs shall file a certificate of service indicating the date and manner of service of the copies on each defendant;
3. 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;
4. Plaintiffs shall file and serve a status report on or before March 1, 2013, and defendants shall file and serve status reports on or before March 8, 2013. 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.
5. Plaintiffs are advised 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; and
6. Plaintiffs are cautioned that Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a defendant must be dismissed if service of the summons and complaint is not accomplished on the defendant within 120 days after the complaint was filed. In order to enable plaintiffs and the court to comply with the time limits specified in Rule 4(m) and Rule 16(b), plaintiffs are strongly encouraged to complete service of process on all defendants within 90 days after the filing of the complaint in this action.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.