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.

United States v. Hartz

United States District Court, E.D. California

March 14, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
RUTHIE HARTZ, Defendant.

ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

Defendant is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was referred to this court under Local Rule 302(c)(21). ECF No. 9.

On March 10, 2014, defendant filed a document purporting to dismiss this action. ECF No. 7. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, defendant's filing is improper and will be denied.

Defendant was served with summons on February 5, 2014; defendant's responsive pleading was due February 26, 2014. ECF No. 4. Defendant filed a document on February 25, 2014. However, that document is non-responsive to the complaint. In light of defendant's pro se status, defendant will be granted an extension of time to file a responsive pleading. Defendant is cautioned that failure to timely file a responsive pleading may result in entry of default judgment against defendant.

Upon review of the entire docket, the court has determined that the only scheduling that need be done at this time is to set a cut-off date for law and motion. Accordingly, all law and motion is left open, save and except that it shall be conducted so as to be completed by May 7, 2014. The word "completed" in this context means that all law and motion matters must be heard by the above date. The parties are cautioned to refer to the local rules regarding the requirements for noticing such motions on the court's regularly scheduled law and motion calendar.

The parties should keep in mind that the purpose of law and motion is to narrow and refine the legal issues raised by the case, and to dispose of by pretrial motion those issues that are susceptible to resolution without trial. To accomplish that purpose, the parties need to identify and fully research the issues presented by the case, and then examine those issues in light of the evidence gleaned through discovery. If it appears after examining the legal issues and facts that an issue can be resolved by pretrial motion, the parties are to file the appropriate motion by the law and motion cutoff set forth supra.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is denied.

2. Defendant shall file a responsive pleading no later than March 27, 2014. Defendant is cautioned that failure to file a responsive pleading may result in a recommendation that default judgment be entered against defendant.

3. All pretrial motions shall be completed by May 7, 2014.


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.