Filed: Jun. 03, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 03, 2013
Summary: ORDER DALE DROZD, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Gregory Farr is now proceeding pro se in this civil action which was removed by defendants from the Solano County Superior Court. The action has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) for all purposes encompassed by that rule. (Doc. No. 18.) On April 18, 2013, the undersigned issued an order setting a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference in this matter for June 7, 2013. (Doc. No. 20.) Pursuant to that order defendant
Summary: ORDER DALE DROZD, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Gregory Farr is now proceeding pro se in this civil action which was removed by defendants from the Solano County Superior Court. The action has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) for all purposes encompassed by that rule. (Doc. No. 18.) On April 18, 2013, the undersigned issued an order setting a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference in this matter for June 7, 2013. (Doc. No. 20.) Pursuant to that order defendant ..
More
ORDER
DALE DROZD, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Gregory Farr is now proceeding pro se in this civil action which was removed by defendants from the Solano County Superior Court. The action has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) for all purposes encompassed by that rule. (Doc. No. 18.)
On April 18, 2013, the undersigned issued an order setting a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference in this matter for June 7, 2013. (Doc. No. 20.) Pursuant to that order defendant was to file a status report on or before May 31, 2013.1 The time for defendant to file its status report has passed and defendant has not filed a status report. The April 18, 2013 order setting Status Conference also advised the defendant that the failure to file a status report could result in an order imposing an appropriate sanction.
In light of defendant's failure to file a timely status report in compliance with the court's order, the Court will continue the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference currently set for June 7, 2013, to July 12, 2013. Defendant shall file a timely status report in compliance with this order prior to the July 12, 2013 conference and shall show cause in writing, why sanctions should not be imposed for their non-compliance.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference currently set for Friday, June 7, 2013, is continued to Friday, July 12, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned.
2. Each party is required to appear at the Status Conference, either by counsel or, if proceeding in propria persona, on his own behalf. Any party may appear at the status conference telephonically if the party pre-arranges such appearance by contacting Pete Buzo, the courtroom deputy of the undersigned magistrate judge, at (916) 930-4128, no later than 48 hours before the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference; a land line telephone number must be provided.
3. On or before June 28, 2013, defendant shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed and shall file and serve a status report.2 The status report shall address all of the following matters:
a. Progress of service of process;
b. Possible joinder of additional parties;
c. Possible amendment of the pleadings;
d. Jurisdiction and venue;
e. Anticipated motions and the scheduling thereof;
f. Anticipated discovery and the scheduling thereof, including disclosure of expert witnesses;
g. Future proceedings, including the setting of appropriate cut-off dates for discovery and for law and motion, and the scheduling of a final pretrial conference and trial;
h. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due to the relative simplicity or complexity of the action;
i. Whether the case is related to any other case, including matters in bankruptcy;
j. Whether the parties will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned to this matter acting as settlement judge, waiving any disqualification by virtue of his so acting, or whether they prefer to have a Settlement Conference before another magistrate judge;
k. Whether the parties intend to consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge; and
l. Any other matters that may aid in the just and expeditious disposition of this action.
4. The parties are again cautioned that failure to file a status report or failure to appear at the status conference may result in an order imposing an appropriate sanction. See Local Rules 110 and 183.
