Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Liu v. J'S Garden Restaurant, Inc.
United States District Court, Ninth Circuit
January 17, 2014
JISHENG LIU, Plaintiff,
J'S GARDEN RESTAURANT, INC. et al., Defendants.
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
On December 17, 2013, defendants filed a notice of removal removing this action from the Solano County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1.) The notice of removal invoked the court's federal question subject matter jurisdiction. (Id.) According to the notice of removal and case documents accompanying the notice of removal, the action was filed in state court on December 3, 2013; defendants were personally served with the complaint on December 8, 2013; and defendants filed an answer to the complaint in state court on December 17, 2013. (Id.)
After all parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (ECF Nos. 4, 6), the action was reassigned to the undersigned for all further proceedings and entry of final judgment.
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 and E.D. Cal. L.R. 240, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Within 28 days of this order, the parties shall meet and confer about the mandatory disclosures required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26, if they have not already done so.
2. A status (pre-trial scheduling) conference is set for Thursday March 20, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25 before the undersigned. All parties shall appear by counsel or in person if acting without counsel.
3. Not later than fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference, the parties shall file a joint status report briefly describing the case and addressing the following: (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 their scheduling; (f) the report required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 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) modifications of standard pretrial procedures 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, including whether the parties desire an early settlement conference; (m) whether counsel will stipulate to the undersigned acting as settlement judge and waive disqualification by virtue of his so acting, or whether they would prefer to have a settlement conference conducted before another judge; (n) whether the case should be briefly stayed and referred to the court's Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program ("VDRP"); and (o) any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of this matter.
4. Failure to obey the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court's Local Rules, or an order of this court may result in dismissal of the action or other appropriate sanctions.
5. Counsel are reminded of their continuing duty to notify chambers immediately of any settlement or other disposition. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 160. In addition, the parties are cautioned that pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c), opposition to granting of a motion must be filed fourteen (14) 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, E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(i) provides that failure to appear may be deemed withdrawal of the motion or of opposition to the motion, or may result in sanctions. Finally, E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 provides that failure to ...
Buy This Entire Record For