Anderson v. Talisman et al

Filing 38

ORDER re 35 Reply. Plaintiffs request that the court set a date for discovery is DENIED as moot, and Plaintiffs request for summary judgment and damages is DENIED without prejudice. signed by Senior Judge Arthur L. Alarcon on 1/21/09. (Gil-Garcia, A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ///// ///// 1 vs. DR. TALISMAN, Defendant. __________________________/ On January 20, 2009, Plaintiff Rodolfo C. Anderson ("Plaintiff") filed a reply to Defendant Dr. Talisman's answer (Doc. No. 35) ("Reply"). In this Reply, Plaintiff requests this Court (1) grant summary judgement for Plaintiff, (2) award compensatory and punitive damages to Plaintiff, (3) set a date for discovery, and (4) grant any other relief the Court deems proper. On January 20, 2009, this Court issued an amended scheduling order. The Amended Scheduling Order allowed the parties to commence discovery and contained the discovery cutoff date. Thus, Plaintiff's request that the Court set a date for discovery is moot. Further, this Court will entertain motions for summary judgment following the completion of discovery. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request that the court set a date ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RODOLFO C. ANDERSON, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:07-cv-00715 ALA (P)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

for discovery is DENIED as moot, and Plaintiff's request for summary judgment and damages is DENIED without prejudice. /// DATED: January 21, 2009 /s/ Arthur L. Alarcón UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE Sitting by Designation

2