Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Lehrfeld v. Edgemonti, 2:18-cv-1755 MCE DB PS. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180927747 Visitors: 18
Filed: Sep. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . Defendants Robert Edgemonti and Donna Rae Edgemonti are proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for Friday, October 26, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27 before the un
More

ORDER

Defendants Robert Edgemonti and Donna Rae Edgemonti are proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for Friday, October 26, 2018, 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 October 12, 2018, and defendants shall file and serve status reports on or before October 19, 2018. 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 venue1; 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 her 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. Defendants' status reports shall also address the absence of the non-joining defendants in the notice of removal. In this regard, "[i]f fewer than all defendants join in removal, the removing party has the burden to affirmatively explain the absence of the non-joining defendants in the notice of removal." Lopez v. BNSF Ry. Co., 614 F.Supp.2d 1084, 1087 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (citing Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir. 1999)).
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