Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Soliz v. Davita Healthcare Partners, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 30, 2016

JESSE SOLIZ, Plaintiff,
v.
DAVITA HELTHCARE PARTNERS, INC., Defendant.

          SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

         This Court conducted a scheduling conference on June 23, 2016. Counsel Amanda Whitten telephonically appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Counsel Annureet Grewal telephonically appeared on behalf of Defendant. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b), this Court sets a schedule for this action.

         I. Amendment To The Parties’ Pleadings

         The parties are advised that the filing of motions and/or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not imply good cause to modify the existing schedule. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 (b) (4); see also Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Moreover, any request for amendment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) must not be: (1) prejudicial to the opposing party; (2) the product of undue delay; (3) proposed in bad faith; or (4) futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

         II Consent To Magistrate Judge

         The parties have not consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Out of fairness, the Court believes it is necessary to forewarn litigants that the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California now has the heaviest District Court Judge caseload in the entire nation. While the Court will use its best efforts to resolve this case and all other civil cases in a timely manner, the parties are advised that not all of the parties’ needs and expectations may be met as expeditiously as desired. As multiple trials are now being set to begin upon the same date, parties may find their case trailing with little notice before the trial begins. The law requires that the Court give any criminal trial priority over civil trials or any other matter. The Court must proceed with a criminal trial even if a civil trial was filed earlier and set for trial first. Continuances of any civil trial under these circumstances will no longer be entertained, absent a specific and stated finding of good cause. All parties should be informed that any civil trial set to begin during the time a criminal trial is proceeding will trail the completion of the criminal trial.

         The parties are reminded of the availability of United States Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean to conduct all proceedings in this action. A United States Magistrate Judge is available to conduct trials, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule 305. The same jury pool is used by both United States Magistrate Judges and United States District Court Judges. Any appeal from a judgment entered by a United States Magistrate Judge is taken directly to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. However, the parties are hereby informed that no substantive rulings or decisions will be affected by whether a party chooses to consent.

         Finally, the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California, whenever possible, is utilizing United States Article III District Court Judges from throughout the nation as Visiting Judges. Pursuant to the Local Rules, Appendix A, reassignments will be random, and the parties will receive no advance notice before their case is reassigned to an Article III District Court Judge from outside of the Eastern District of California. Therefore, the parties are directed to consider consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction to conduct all further proceedings, including trial.

         III. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)

         Initial disclosures shall be completed on or before July 7, 2016.

         IV. Discovery Cutoffs And Limits

         All non-expert discovery shall be completed no later than March 6, 2017. Initial expert witness disclosures shall be served no later than April 10, 2017. Rebuttal expert witness disclosures shall be served no later than April 24, 2017. Such disclosures must be made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(A), (B) and (C), and shall include all information required thereunder. In addition, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e) specifically apply to discovery relating to expert witnesses and their opinions. Each expert witness must be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions included in the disclosures. Failure to comply with these requirements will result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including the preclusion of the expert’s testimony, or of other evidence offered through the expert. All expert discovery shall be completed no later than May 22, 2017. The Court sets a Telephonic Mid-Discovery Status Conference for November 9, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 10 before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. The parties are to submit a joint report, of up to five pages, outlining the status of the case, any additional discovery still planned, potential for settlement, and any other issues pending that would benefit from the Court's assistance/direction. Said report is to be filed seven (7) calendar days prior to the conference with a copy, in Word format, emailed to chambers at epgorders@caed.uscourts.gov.

         V. Pretrial Motion Schedule

         A. Non-Dispositive Motions

         All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any discovery motions, shall be filed no later than May 22, 2017, and heard in Courtroom 10 before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. Non-dispositive motions are heard on Fridays at 10:00 a.m. In scheduling such motions, the parties shall comply with Local Rule 230.

         The parties are advised that unless prior leave of the Court is obtained before the filing deadline, [1] all moving and opposition briefs or legal memoranda filed in civil cases before Magistrate Judge Grosjean shall not exceed twenty five (25) pages. Reply briefs by the moving party shall not exceed ten (10) pages. These page limits do not include exhibits.

         Counsel or pro se parties may appear and argue non-dispositive motions by telephone, provided a request to so do is made to Michelle Means Rooney, Magistrate Judge Grosjean’s Courtroom Deputy, no later than five (5) court days before the noticed hearing date. Requests can be made by calling Ms. Means Rooney at (559) 499-5962, or via email at mrooney@caed.uscourts.gov. Although in-person appearances will not usually be required for out-of-town attorneys, the Court discourages telephonic appearances for local attorneys in the Fresno area. In the event that more than one party requests to appear by telephone, the parties shall coordinate a one-line conference call to the chamber’s telephone number at (559) 499-5960.

         1. Informal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.