Eli Lilly and Company v. Gitmed et al
Filing
61
ORDER Continuing Scheduling Conference to December 11, 2017 at 9:30 A.M., signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/1/17. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
Case No. 1:16-cv-00178-DAD-SAB
ORDER CONTINUING SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE TO DECEMBER 11, 2017,
AT 9:30 A.M.
v.
JOHN DEREK GITMED, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
17
This action was filed on February 8, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On May 4, 2017, the Court
18 granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s application for entry of default judgment (ECF No.
19 44) against Defendant Anthony Pollino, Jr. (“Defendant Pollino”). (ECF No. 56.) Plaintiff’s
20 application for entry of default judgment against Defendant Pollino was granted as to liability,
21 but denied as to damages and injunctive relief. (ECF No. 56.)
22
On July 18, 2017, the Court set a mandatory scheduling conference in this matter for
23 October 17, 2017. (ECF No. 58.)
24
On August 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of Defendant John
25 Derek Gitmed.
(ECF No. 59.)
Therefore, the only defendant remaining in this action is
26 Defendant Pollino.
27
On August 29, 2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an application for entry of default
28 judgment against Defendant Pollino within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order.
1
1 (ECF No. 60.)
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the scheduling conference in this matter is
2
3 continued from October 17, 2017, to December 11, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. in courtroom 9 before the
4 undersigned. The parties are required to file a joint scheduling report one week prior to the
5 scheduled conference date.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 Dated:
September 1, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?