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.

Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District v. B.S

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 28, 2013

FAIRFIELD-SUISUN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
B.S., DEFENDANT.
B.S., COUNTERCLAIMANT,
v.
FAIRFIELD-SUISUN UNIFIED SCHOOL STATUS DISTRICT, COUNTERDEFENDANT,

ORDER

An initial scheduling conference was held in this case on January 10, 2013; Douglas Freifeld and Mary Keaney appeared for plaintiff; no appearance was made for defendant. Having reviewed the parties' Joint Status Report filed on January 3, 2013, and discussed a schedule for the case with counsel at the hearing, the court makes the following orders:

I. SERVICE OF PROCESS

All named defendants have been served and no further service is permitted

without leave of court, good cause having been shown.

II. ADDITIONAL PARTIES/AMENDMENTS/PLEADINGS No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown. See FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992).

III. JURISDICTION/VENUE

Jurisdiction is predicated upon 20 U.S.C. 1415(i)(2)(a). Jurisdiction and venue are not disputed.

IV. DISCOVERY

No discovery is anticipated. Plaintiff lodged with the court a copy of the administrative transcript, in both paper and electronic format; plaintiff is to file a notice of lodging.

V. MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

The parties request that the court make a ruling based on submitted briefs, with oral argument as deemed necessary by the court. Neither party is requesting a jury trial.

The following dates are set for this briefing:

Plaintiff's and Defendant's Opening Brief filed by May 7, 2013. Plaintiff's and Defendant's Opposition filed by June 4, 2013. Plaintiff's and Defendant's Reply Brief filed by June 18, 2013. Oral argument will be set if necessary.

VI. SEALING

No document will be sealed, nor shall a redacted document be filed, without the prior approval of the court. If a document for which sealing or redaction is sought relates to the record on a motion to be decided by Judge Mueller, the request to seal or redact should be directed to her and not the assigned Magistrate Judge. All requests to seal or redact shall be governed by Local Rules 141 (sealing) and 140 (redaction); protective orders covering the discovery phase of litigation shall not govern the filing of sealed or redacted documents on the public docket. The court will only consider requests to seal or redact filed by the proponent of sealing or redaction. If a party plans to make a filing that includes material an opposing party has identified as confidential and potentially subject to sealing, the filing party shall provide the opposing party with sufficient notice in advance of filing to allow for the seeking of an order of sealing or redaction from the court.

VII. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

The parties have expressed interest in appearing for settlement conference.

Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney has been randomly selected. A settlement conference is scheduled before Judge Delaney for April 8, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 24, 8th Floor.

The parties are directed to submit their confidential settlement conference statements to the Court using the following email address: ckdorders@caed.uscourts.gov. If a party desires to share additional confidential information with the Court, they may do so pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 270(d) and (e). Statements are due at least 7 days prior to the Settlement Conference. Each party is reminded of the requirement that it be represented in person at the settlement conference by a person able to dispose of the case or fully authorized to settle the matter at the settlement conference on any terms. See Local Rule 270.

VIII. MODIFICATION OF STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER The parties are reminded that pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of good cause. Agreement by the parties pursuant to stipulation alone does not constitute good cause. Except in extraordinary circumstances, unavailability of witnesses or counsel does not constitute good cause.

IX. OBJECTIONS TO STATUS ORDER

This Status Order will become final without further order of the court unless objections are filed within fourteen (14) calendar days of service of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130128

© 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.