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.

Larteri v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston

United States District Court, E.D. California

January 10, 2020

SHELITA LARTERI, Plaintiff,
v.
LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON, Defendant.

          SCHEDULING ORDER (FED.R.CIV.P 16)

         I. Date of Scheduling Conference

         The Scheduling Conference was held on January 10, 2020.

         II. Appearances of Counsel

         Counsel Cesar Gavidia, Jr., appeared telephonically on behalf of Plaintiff.

         Counsel Blake J. Russum appeared telephonically on behalf of Defendant.

         III. Consent to Magistrate Judge

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to the parties who have not consented to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial, [1] before United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone, you should be informed that because of the pressing workload of United States district judges and the priority of criminal cases under the United States Constitution, you are encouraged to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction in an effort to have your case adjudicated in a timely and cost effective manner.

         Presently, when a civil trial is set before Judge Drozd, any criminal trial set which conflicts with the civil trial will take priority, even if the civil trial was set first. Continuances of civil trials under these circumstances may no longer be entertained, absent a specific and stated finding of good cause, but the civil trial may instead trail from day to day or week to week until the completion of either the criminal case or the older civil case.

         The parties are advised that they are free to withhold consent or decline magistrate jurisdiction without adverse substantive consequences.

         IV. Amendments to Pleading

         Any motions or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings must be filed by no later than April 17, 2020. The parties are advised that filing motions and/or stipulations requesting leave to amend the pleadings does not reflect on the propriety of the amendment or imply good cause to modify the existing schedule, if necessary. All proposed amendments must (A) be supported by good cause pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) if the amendment requires any modification to the existing schedule, see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992), and (B) establish, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), that such an amendment is not (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).

         V. Discovery and Motion Schedule

         The administrative record shall be filed on or before September 1, 2020. Motions for summary judgment shall be filed on or before October 4, 2020. Oppositions to the motions for summary judgment shall be filed on or before October 18, 2020. The motions shall be heard pursuant to the Local Rules in Courtroom 2 before United States District Judge Dale A. Drozd. In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P 56 and Local Rules 230 and 260.

         Motions for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication: Prior to filing a motion for summary judgment or motion for summary adjudication, the parties are ORDERED to meet, in person or by telephone, ...


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.