Barker v. Osemwingie, 2:16-cv-3008 JAM CKD P. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180221g73
Visitors: 5
Filed: Feb. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Defendants Osemwingie and Ramiscal have answered the second amended complaint. Pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 26 and Local Rule 240, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Within thirty days of the filing of this order, the parties shall confer and submit a joint status report and proposed schedule that briefly sets out their views on the following matters: a. Service of process; b. Possible joinder of additional
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Defendants Osemwingie and Ramiscal have answered the second amended complaint. Pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 26 and Local Rule 240, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Within thirty days of the filing of this order, the parties shall confer and submit a joint status report and proposed schedule that briefly sets out their views on the following matters: a. Service of process; b. Possible joinder of additional ..
More
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
Defendants Osemwingie and Ramiscal have answered the second amended complaint. Pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 26 and Local Rule 240, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Within thirty days of the filing of this order, the parties shall confer and submit a joint status report and proposed schedule that briefly sets out their views on the following matters:
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 the scheduling thereof;
f. The deadline for initial disclosures. If any party objects to the appropriateness of initial disclosures, an explanation must be provided;
g. Anticipated discovery and the scheduling thereof;
h. Future proceedings, including setting appropriate cutoff dates for discovery and law and motion;
i. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due to the relative simplicity or complexity of the action or proceedings;
j. Whether this matter is to be tried before this court or the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c);
k. Whether counsel will stipulate to the trial judge acting as settlement judge and waiving any disqualifications by virtue of his so acting, or whether they prefer to have a Settlement Conference before another judge;
l. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of this matter.
2. If the parties are unable to submit a single proposed schedule because they cannot agree on deadlines, the joint status report must reflect each party's proposed deadlines. For any deadlines upon which the parties are unable to agree, each party must provide an explanation of their position on the appropriateness of their proposed deadline.
Source: Leagle
