Johnson v. City of Atwater, 1:16-CV-1636 AWI SAB. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190129802
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND PROPOSED VOIR DIRE ANTHONY W. ISHII , District Judge . Plaintiffs Richard and Lori Johnson are proceeding to trial on four claims, each arising from a continuing dispute between them and the City of Atwater over the non-payment of water bills. On January 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a document entitled "Proposed Voir Dire," that included Plaintiffs' requested voir dire questions and Plaintiffs' "Statement of the Case." Plaintiffs requested
Summary: ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND PROPOSED VOIR DIRE ANTHONY W. ISHII , District Judge . Plaintiffs Richard and Lori Johnson are proceeding to trial on four claims, each arising from a continuing dispute between them and the City of Atwater over the non-payment of water bills. On January 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a document entitled "Proposed Voir Dire," that included Plaintiffs' requested voir dire questions and Plaintiffs' "Statement of the Case." Plaintiffs requested ..
More
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND PROPOSED VOIR DIRE
ANTHONY W. ISHII, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Richard and Lori Johnson are proceeding to trial on four claims, each arising from a continuing dispute between them and the City of Atwater over the non-payment of water bills. On January 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a document entitled "Proposed Voir Dire," that included Plaintiffs' requested voir dire questions and Plaintiffs' "Statement of the Case." Plaintiffs requested an extension of time to submit these documents, citing good cause for Plaintiffs Counsel's personal emergency. The Court will grant the extension, finding good cause.
However, the Court notes that Plaintiffs' submission is defective. While Plaintiffs' proposed voir dire questions are acceptable, the Court cannot accept Plaintiffs' Statement of the Case. The Joint Pretrial Order specifically requires a "joint agreed summary of the case." See Doc. No. 77, p. 23. Thus, Plaintiffs' document "Proposed Voir Dire" (Doc. No. 101) will be stricken from the docket. By 4:00 p.m. today, Monday, January 28, 2019, Plaintiffs may resubmit their proposed voir dire questions in a separate document, and the Parties are ordered to submit a joint agreed summary of the case.
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs' request for an extension of time to file proposed voir dire and a statement of the case is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiffs' document entitled "Proposed Voir Dire" (Doc. No. 101) is stricken from the docket;
3. By 4:00p.m. today, January 28, 2019;
a. Plaintiffs may refile their proposed voir dire questions as a separate document; and
b. The parties shall submit a joint statement of the case, pursuant to the Pretrial Order (Doc. No. 77).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
