Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Deloney v. County of Fresno, 1:17-cv-01336-LJO-EPG. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190211835 Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 08, 2019
Summary: ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF Nos. 24, 62) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . The Court held a status conference on February 7, 2019. Plaintiff's counsel, James Cook, was present telephonically. Matthew Grigg, counsel for Defendants Yang, Santos, Trow, and Whitecotton, was present telephonically. James D. Weakly, counsel for Defendants County of Fresno, Vinton, 1 McCoy, Ramos, Canal, Yusif, Delgarza, and De La Cruz was personally present. As discussed during the status confer
More

ORDER MODIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER

(ECF Nos. 24, 62)

The Court held a status conference on February 7, 2019. Plaintiff's counsel, James Cook, was present telephonically. Matthew Grigg, counsel for Defendants Yang, Santos, Trow, and Whitecotton, was present telephonically. James D. Weakly, counsel for Defendants County of Fresno, Vinton,1 McCoy, Ramos, Canal, Yusif, Delgarza, and De La Cruz was personally present.

As discussed during the status conference, and finding good cause, IT IS ORDERED that the scheduling conference order (ECF No. 24) is modified as follows:

1. Nonexpert discovery cutoff is June 20, 2019; 2. Expert disclosure deadline is July 26, 2019; 3. Rebuttal expert disclosure deadline is September 13, 2019; 4. Expert discovery cutoff is October 25, 2019; 5. Dispositive motion filing deadline is November 22, 2019; 6. A status conference is set for June 18, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. The parties shall file a joint status report by June 11, 2019. If the parties determine that this status conference is not necessary, the parties shall notify the Court no later than close of business on June 11, 2019. 7. The Pretrial Conference is set for May 28, 2020, at 08:15 a.m., in Courtroom 4 (LJO) before Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill; 8. Jury Trial (14-21 day estimate) is set for August 4, 2020, at 08:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4 (LJO) before Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to correct the docket to indicate the correct spelling of the last name of Defendant Vinton, who is currently designated on the docket as "Vinson."

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. During the status conference, Mr. Weakley stated that he was not representing Defendant Vinton aka Vinson, and that Defendant Vinton has never been served. However, Mr. Weakley filed an answer on behalf of Defendant Vinton (ECF No. 8), and has accordingly entered his appearance as attorney of record for Defendant Vinton. See Local Rule 182(a)(2). Mr. Weakley has neither sought nor been granted leave to withdraw as counsel for Defendant Vinton. See Local Rule 182(d) ("an attorney who has appeared may not withdraw leaving the client in propria persona without leave of court upon noticed motion and notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared."). Further, by filing an answer that does not challenge the adequacy of service, Defendant Vinton has waived service of process. See generally Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986) ("[A] general appearance or responsive pleading by a defendant that fails to dispute personal jurisdiction will waive any defect in service or personal jurisdiction.") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), amended 807 F.2d 1514 (9th Cir.); DePrins v. Clark, 566 Fed. Appx. 608, 610 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2014) ("[A] party waives service of process when it files an answer to the complaint[.]") (citing id.).
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