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.

Emir Sehic v. William Van anderson; Mayuka S anderson

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


January 22, 2013

EMIR SEHIC, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WILLIAM VAN ANDERSON; MAYUKA S ANDERSON, CONFERENCE DEFENDANTS

ORDER SETTING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

This action was transferred from the Middle District of Alabama to this court on December 17, 2012. Plaintiff Emir Sehic, defendant William Van Anderson and defendant Mayuka S. Anderson are proceeding pro se. The action has therefore been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) for all purposes encompassed by that rule.

Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for Friday, March 29, 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. Each party is required to appear at the Status Conference, either by counsel or, if proceeding in propria persona, on his own behalf. Any party may appear at the status 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, no later than 48 hours before the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference; a land line telephone number must be provided.

3. Plaintiff shall file and serve his own separate status report on or before March 15, 2013, and each defendant shall file and serve their own separate status report on or before March 22, 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.

4. The parties are cautioned that failure to file a status report or failure to appear at the status conference may result in an order imposing an appropriate sanction. See Local Rules 110 and 183.

20130122

© 1992-2013 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.