Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Taylor v. Eskaton Properties, 2:16-CV-0102 KJM CKD. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160622859 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 21, 2016
Summary: STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . An initial scheduling conference was held in this case on May 26, 2016. Kiersta Perlee appeared for plaintiff's counsel Anthony Ontiveros; Fraser McAlpine and Sander Van der Heide appeared for defendants Eskaton Properties, Inc. and Eskaton Health Plan; there was no appearance by defendant Healthcomp Administrators. Having reviewed the parties' separate case Management Statements 1 and discussed a schedule for the c
More

STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER

An initial scheduling conference was held in this case on May 26, 2016. Kiersta Perlee appeared for plaintiff's counsel Anthony Ontiveros; Fraser McAlpine and Sander Van der Heide appeared for defendants Eskaton Properties, Inc. and Eskaton Health Plan; there was no appearance by defendant Healthcomp Administrators.

Having reviewed the parties' separate case Management Statements1 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. ADDITIONALPARTIES/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. JURISDICTION/VENUE

Jurisdiction is predicated upon 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Jurisdiction and venue are not disputed.

IV. INITIAL DISCLOSURES

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(B)(1), initial disclosures are neither required nor appropriate because this is an action for review based on an administrative record.

VI. MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE

This matter will be decided by cross-motions for judgment under Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The following schedule will apply:

— The Administrative Record shall be filed with the court on or before June 27, 2016. — The parties disagree about the nature and extent of permissible discovery. Any motion for permission to conduct discovery shall be notice to be heard within forty-five (45) days after the filing of the Administrative Record. — Cross-motions shall be filed by each party no later than January 27, 2017. — Responsive briefing, if any, shall be filed no later than February 24, 2017. — Cross-motions for judgment shall be heard on March 24, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned in Courtroom No. 3.

XI. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

No settlement conference is currently scheduled. In the event that an earlier court settlement conference date or referral to the Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program (VDRP) is requested, the parties shall file said request jointly, in writing.

Counsel are instructed to have a principal with full settlement authority present at any Settlement Conference or to be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms. Each judge has different requirements for the submission of settlement conference statements; the appropriate instructions will be sent to you after the settlement judge is assigned.

XII. MODIFICATION OF STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER

The parties are reminded that pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order shall not be modified except by leave of court upon a showing of good cause. Agreement by the parties pursuant to stipulation alone does not constitute good cause. Except in extraordinary circumstances, unavailability of witnesses or counsel does not constitute good cause.

The assigned magistrate judge is authorized to modify only the discovery dates shown above to the extent any such modification does not impact the balance of the schedule of the case.

XIII. OBJECTIONS TO STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER

This Status Order will become final without further order of the court unless objections are filed within fourteen (14) calendar days of service of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The parties were reminded that such separate statements, when a joint statement is required, are highly disfavored.
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