New York Life Insurance Company v. Dial, 2:19-cv-00801-KJM-EFB. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190910660
Visitors: 12
Filed: Sep. 06, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 06, 2019
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Because the parties have not filed a joint status report, the status (pretrial scheduling) conference set for September 12, 2019 is VACATED and RESET for October 10, 2019 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3 before District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. The parties shall file a joint status report no less than seven days prior to the status conference. Failure to timely file a joint status report may result in the court imposing sanctions. Further, plaintif
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Because the parties have not filed a joint status report, the status (pretrial scheduling) conference set for September 12, 2019 is VACATED and RESET for October 10, 2019 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3 before District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. The parties shall file a joint status report no less than seven days prior to the status conference. Failure to timely file a joint status report may result in the court imposing sanctions. Further, plaintiff..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
Because the parties have not filed a joint status report, the status (pretrial scheduling) conference set for September 12, 2019 is VACATED and RESET for October 10, 2019 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3 before District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. The parties shall file a joint status report no less than seven days prior to the status conference. Failure to timely file a joint status report may result in the court imposing sanctions.
Further, plaintiff's desire for an expeditious resolution of this matter, while understandable, does not satisfy the court that plaintiff's motion for leave to serve defendant Dial by publication must be heard on an ex parte basis and cannot be noticed on the court's motion calendar as provided by Local Rule 230. ECF No. 8 (motion); ECF No. 3.-1 at 5 (standing order). The ex parte application is DENIED, without prejudice to plaintiff refiling as a noticed motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
