Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gonzalez v. U.S., 2:15-cv-1997 MCE DB PS. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170307790 Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 06, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 06, 2017
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was, therefore, referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). On February 3, 2017, defendant filed an answer. 1 Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for Friday, May 19, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States
More

ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was, therefore, referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On February 3, 2017, defendant filed an answer.1

Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for Friday, May 19, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned.

2. All parties are required to appear at the Status Conference, either by counsel or, if proceeding in propria persona, on his or her 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 party may not appear telephonically over a cellphone.

3. Plaintiff shall file and serve a status report on or before May 5, 2017, and defendant shall file and serve a status report on or before May 12, 2017. Each party's 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 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.

FootNotes


1. On February 23, 2017, plaintiff filed a request for 30-day extension of time to explore a stay or settlement of these proceedings. (ECF No. 22.) Because the May 19, 2017 date accommodates plaintiff's request, his motion is denied as having been rendered moot.
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