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.

Avery v. Akima, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 23, 2019

DEVIER AVERY, Plaintiff,
v.
AKIMA, LLC, et al., Defendants.

          CLASS CERTIFICATION PHASE SCHEDULING ORDER

         A scheduling conference was held in this case on September 12, 2019. David Spivak appeared for plaintiff; Heather Hearne appeared for defendants.

         Having reviewed the parties’ Joint Status Report filed on August 15, 2019, 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. DISMISSAL OF ONE DEFENDANT

         Plaintiff agrees AKIMA, LLC is not a proper defendant and DISMISSED it at hearing without objection and with the court’s approval.

         IV. JURISDICTION/VENUE

         Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441 and 1446. Jurisdiction and venue are not disputed.

         V. DISCOVERY

         Initial disclosures as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) have been completed. All class certification discovery shall be completed by February 21, 2020. In this context, “completed” means that all discovery shall have been conducted so that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relative to discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has been obeyed. All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on the magistrate judge’s calendar in accordance with the local rules of this court. While the assigned magistrate judge reviews proposed discovery phase protective orders, requests to seal or redact are decided by Judge Mueller as discussed in more detail below. In addition, while the assigned magistrate judge handles discovery motions, the magistrate judge cannot change the schedule set in this order, except that the magistrate judge may modify a discovery cutoff to the extent such modification does not have the effect of requiring a change to the balance of the schedule.

         The court approves the parties’ agreement that service via e-mail is acceptable provided that concurrent service by regular U.S. mail occurs.

         To the extent computer-based and/or digital information is requested and/or produced in the course of discovery, the court approves the parties’ agreement that such documents will be produced in ...


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.