Richard E. Lee v. Los Angeles Unified School District et al

Filing 143

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge A. Howard Matz. The Court's Scheduling and Case Management Order states that a plaintiff's noncompliance with the pre-trial filing requirements will result in a dismissal for failure to prosecute. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff Richard Lee to show cause in writing, by no later than March 16, 2012, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (kbr)

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 09-03067 AHM (AGRx)

Title

RICHARD LEE v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

March 9, 2012

A. HOWARD MATZ, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Stephen Montes

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys NOT Present for Plaintiffs:

Proceedings:

Tape No.

Attorneys NOT Present for Defendants:

IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)

Following numerous extensions and delays, the bench trial in this case is scheduled
for April 3, 2012. The Court is not willing to continue this date. After the November 28,
2011, status conference, the Court scheduled a pre-trial conference for March 19, 2012.
(Dkt. 129 at 1 n.2.) The Court ordered the parties “to comply with Local Rule 16 and file
the necessary pre-trial briefs and memoranda.” (Dkt. 129 at 1 n.2.)
Local Rule 16 requires the parties to separately file (1) a Witness List, and (2) a
Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law. In addition, the parties are required to file
(1) a Joint Exhibit List and (2) a Joint Pre-Trial Conference Order. The Court’s
Scheduling and Case Management Order of July 8, 2009, repeats these requirements.
(Dkt. 12.)
Defendants have filed a Witness List, a Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and
Law, and an Exhibit List. Pro se Plaintiff Richard Lee has not filed these documents.
The parties have also not filed a Joint Pre-Trial Conference Order. Defendants state that
this is because Plaintiff has not prepared a draft of this document as he is required to do
pursuant to Local Rule 16–7. (Dkt. 138 at 2.) Similarly, the parties have not filed a Joint
Exhibit List. Defendants state that this is because Plaintiff did not respond to
Defendants’ request to provide the necessary information. (Dkt. 141 at 1.)
///
///
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 09-03067 AHM (AGRx)

Date

March 9, 2012

Title

RICHARD LEE v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.

The Court’s Scheduling and Case Management Order states that a plaintiff’s noncompliance with the pre-trial filing requirements will result in a dismissal for failure to
prosecute. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff Richard Lee to show cause in
writing, by no later than March 16, 2012, why this case should not be dismissed for
failure to prosecute.
:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

SMO

Page 2 of 2