Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Diane Thomas-Young v. Memorial Hospital Foundation

December 4, 2012

DIANE THOMAS-YOUNG,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOUNDATION,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

SCHEDULING ORDER (Fed.R.Civ.P 16) Initial Disclosures: 12/3/2012 Discovery Deadlines: ) Non Expert: 9/20/2013 Expert: 10/30/2013 et al., Non-Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filing: 10/30/2013 )) Dispositive Motion Deadlines: Filing: 12/16/2013

Mid-Discovery Status Conference:

6/12/2013 at 10:00a.m. Courtroom 7 Settlement Conference:

8/29/2013 at 10:00a.m. Courtroom 7 Pre-Trial Conference:

3/19/2014 at 8:30 a.m.

Courtroom 2 Jury Trial: 5/13/2014 at 8:30 a.m.

Courtroom 2 (7-10 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference

December 4, 2012.

II. Appearances of Counsel

Jennet Zapata, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiff.

Jahmal Davis, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants Sutter Central Valley Hospitals dba Memorial Medical Center and Memorial Medical Center.

III. Amendment to the Parties' Pleadings

The parties do not anticipate any amendments to the pleadings at this time. Any motions or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings must be filed by no later than 4/30/2013. The parties are advised that filing motions and/or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings by 4/30/2013 does not reflect on the propriety of the amendment or imply good cause to modify the existing schedule, if necessary. All proposed amendments must (A) be supported by good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) if the amendment requires any modification to the existing schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), that such an amendment is not (1) prejudicial to the opposing party, (2) the product of undue delay, (3) proposed in bad faith, or (4) futile, see Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

IV. Consent to the Magistrate Judge

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have not consented to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial, before the Honorable Sheila K. Oberto, U.S. Magistrate Judge.

V. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date

The parties are ordered to exchange the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) on or before 12/3/2012. The parties advised the Court at the December 4, 2012, Scheduling Conference that initial disclosures were completed.

The parties are ordered to complete all discovery pertaining to non-experts on or before 9/20/2013, and all discovery pertaining ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.