IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 9, 2013
KARAMEN BALLARD, PLAINTIFF,
PATRICK R. DONAHOE, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Allison Claire United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff proceeds in this action in pro per.*fn1 On March 12, 2013, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to keep the court apprised of her current address. See ECF No. 17. Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations and has updated her address on file.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The March 12, 2013 findings and recommendations are vacated;
2. Failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, or orders of this court, may result in dismissal of this action. Even parties without counsel will be expected to comply with the procedural rules.
3. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for May 22, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.in courtroom # 26 before the undersigned. All parties shall appear by counsel or in person if acting without counsel.
4. The parties shall submit to the court and serve by mail on all other parties, no later than fourteen (14) days before the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference, a status report*fn2 addressing the following matters:
a. Service of process;
b. Possible joinder of additional parties;
c. Any expected or desired amendment of the pleadings;
d. Jurisdiction and venue;
e. Anticipated motions and the scheduling thereof;
f. The report required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 outlining the proposed discovery plan and its scheduling, including disclosure of expert witnesses;
g. Future proceedings, including setting appropriate cut-off dates for discovery and law and motion, and the scheduling of a pretrial conference and trial;
h. Special procedures, if any;
i. Estimated trial time;
j. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due to the simplicity or complexity of the proceedings;
k. Whether the case is related to any other cases, including bankruptcy;
l. Whether a settlement conference should be scheduled;
m. Whether counsel will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned to this matter acting as settlement judge and waiving disqualification by virtue of her so acting, or whether they prefer to have a settlement conference before another judge;
n. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of this matter.
5. Plaintiff and counsel are reminded of their continuing duty to notify chambers immediately of any settlement or other disposition (see Local Rule 160). In addition, the parties are cautioned that pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), opposition to the granting of a motion must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. The 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(j) 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."
6. The parties have previously been informed that they may, if all consent, have this case tried by a United States Magistrate Judge while preserving their right to appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeal. The appropriate forms for consent to trial by a magistrate judge have been provided to the parties. See Doc. No. 11. Any party choosing to consent may complete the form and return it to the clerk of this court. Neither the magistrate judge nor the district judge handling the case will be notified of the filing of a consent form unless all parties to the action have consented.