Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Pirie v. DRD Hospitality, Inc., 2:16-cv-2636 AC. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170124909 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 23, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 23, 2017
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . All parties in this case have consented to have the magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case. ECF Nos. 5, 7. The case was accordingly referred to the undersigned for all further proceedings and entry of final judgment by order dated December 12, 2016 (ECF No. 8), and E.D. Cal. R. 301 (trials by consent). Pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 16 and E.D. Cal. R. ("Local Rule") 240, IT IS HEREBY O
More

ORDER

All parties in this case have consented to have the magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in this case. ECF Nos. 5, 7. The case was accordingly referred to the undersigned for all further proceedings and entry of final judgment by order dated December 12, 2016 (ECF No. 8), and E.D. Cal. R. 301 (trials by consent).

Pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 16 and E.D. Cal. R. ("Local Rule") 240, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for May 24, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom no. 26 before the undersigned. All parties shall appear by counsel or in person if acting without counsel. 2. Not later than fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference, the parties shall file status reports addressing the following matters:1 a. Service of process; b. Possible joinder of additional parties; c. Any expected or desired amendment of the pleadings; d. Jurisdiction and venue; e. Anticipated motions and their scheduling; f. The report required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 outlining the proposed discovery plan and its scheduling, including disclosure of expert witnesses; g. Future proceedings, including setting appropriate cut-off dates for discovery and law and motion, and the scheduling of a pretrial conference and trial; h. Special procedures, if any; i. Estimated trial time; j. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due to the simplicity or complexity of the proceedings; k. Whether the case is related to any other cases, including bankruptcy; l. Whether a settlement conference should be scheduled; m. Whether counsel will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned to this matter acting as settlement judge and waiving disqualification by virtue of her so acting, or whether they prefer to have a settlement conference before another judge; n. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of this matter. 3. Plaintiff and counsel are reminded of their continuing duty to notify chambers immediately of any settlement or other disposition of the case (see Local Rule 160). In addition, the parties are cautioned that pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), opposition to the granting of a motion must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. The Local Rule further provides that "[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party." Moreover, Local Rule 230(i) provides that failure to appear may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to the motion or may result in sanctions. Finally, Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court."

FootNotes


1. The parties are encouraged, when possible, to file a joint status report.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer