Natl Assn of Optomet, et al v. Lockyer, et al

Filing 389

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/17/06 ORDERING that the previously-ordered stay 377 is hereby LIFTED. Within 30 days of this order, both parties shall submit to the court a brief which outlines the status of the case. Specifically, the parties should address the following: which motions remain to be adjudicated; which portions of the previously filed record are necessary to the resolution of each of the motions; and what effect, if any, the Cole decision has on the pending motions. The pending motions are SET for oral argument on 9/25/2006 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. (Duong, D)

Natl Assn of Optomet, et al v. Lockyer, et al

Doc. 389

Case 2:02-cv-01464-LKK-DAD

Document 389

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 1 of 2

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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF OPTOMETRISTS & OPTICIANS; LENSCRAFTERS, INC; and EYE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC., Plaintiffs, v. BILL LOCKYER, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California; and CHARLENE ZETTEL, in her official capacity as Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs, Defendants. /

NO. CIV. S-02-1464 LKK/DAD

ORDER

A Status Conference was held in the above-captioned case on June 26, 2006. Both parties informed the court that the recent

decision in People v. Cole (Pearle Vision), Case. No. S121724, justifies lifting the previously ordered stay and proceeding to the merits of plaintiff's claims. as follows: 1
Dockets.Justia.com

Accordingly, the court ORDERS

Case 2:02-cv-01464-LKK-DAD

Document 389

Filed 07/18/2006

Page 2 of 2

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. 2.

The previously-ordered stay is hereby LIFTED. Within thirty days of this order, both parties shall

submit to the court a brief which outlines the status of the case. Specifically, the parties should address the following:

(a) which motions remain to be adjudicated, (the court requests that counsel refer to specific docket numbers); (b) which portions of the previously filed record are necessary to the resolution of each of the motions, (counsel is requested to refer to specific docket numbers and explain how each set of exhibits is relevant to the specific motion); and (c) what effect, if any, the Cole decision has on the pending motions. 3. The pending motions are hereby SET for oral argument

on the court's regularly scheduled Law and Motion Calendar, on September 25, 2006, beginning at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4. IT IS SO ORDERED DATED: July 17, 2006.

2