Lewis, et al v. Russell, et al
Filing
344
STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 4/14/11: Discovery due by 4/29/2011. Dispositive Motions filed by 5/23/2014. Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/21/2014 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Judge William B. Shubb. Jury Trial set for 9/16/2014 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Judge William B. Shubb. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
----oo0oo----
11
12
CHARLES H. LEWIS and JANE W.
LEWIS,
NO. CIV. 2:03-2646 WBS GGH
13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ROBERT D. RUSSELL; IRENE
RUSSELL; BEN J. NEWITT; the
Estate of PHILLIP NEWITT,
Deceased; JUNG HANG SUH; SOO
JUNG SUH; JUNG K. SEO; THE
DAVIS CENTER, LLC; MELVIN R.
STOVER, individually and as
trustee of the Stover Family
Trust; EMILY A. STOVER,
individually and as trustee of
the Stover Family Trust;
STOVER FAMILY TRUST; RICHARD
ALBERT STINCHFIELD,
individually and as successor
trustee of the Robert S.
Stinchfield Separate Property
Revocable Trust, and as
trustee of the Barbara Ellen
Stinchfield Testamentary
Trust; ROBERT S. STINCHFIELD
SEPARATE PROPERTY REVOCABLE
TRUST; THE BARBARA ELLEN
STINCHFIELD TESTAMENTARY
TRUST; WORKROOM SUPPLY, INC.,
a California corporation;
SAFETY-KLEEN CORPORATION,
1
1
2
3
California corporation; the
CITY OF DAVIS; JENSEN
MANUFACTURING COMPANY; VIC
MANUFACTURING COMPANY; MARTIN
FRANCHISES INC., aka/dba
MARTINIZING DRY CLEANING,
4
Defendants,
5
6
/
AND RELATED COUNTER-, CROSS-,
AND THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS.
/
7
8
----oo0oo---9
STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER
10
After reviewing the parties’ Joint Status Report, the
11
12
court hereby vacates the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference
13
scheduled for April 18, 2011.
14
I.
SERVICE OF PROCESS
15
With the exception of cross-defendant Jensen
16
Manufacturing Company--which the parties believe has dissolved
17
and filed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy--all named defendants and third-
18
party defendants have been served and no further service is
19
permitted without leave of court, good cause having been shown
20
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b).
21
II.
JOINDER OF PARTIES/AMENDMENTS
22
No further joinder of parties or amendments to
23
pleadings will be permitted except with leave of court, good
24
cause having been shown under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
25
16(b).
26
(9th Cir. 1992).
See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604
27
III. JURISDICTION/VENUE
28
Jurisdiction is predicated upon federal question
2
1
jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because plaintiffs have brought
2
claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
3
Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-
4
9675.
5
to plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district.
6
1391(b).
Venue is found to be proper because the events giving rise
28 U.S.C. §
DISCOVERY1
7
IV.
8
Initial disclosures as required by Federal Rule of
9
Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) having been made before the case was
10
stayed, the parties shall serve supplemental or amended
11
disclosures by no later than April 29, 2011.
12
The parties shall disclose experts and produce reports
13
in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no
14
later than September 13, 2013.
15
intended solely for rebuttal, those experts shall be disclosed
16
and reports produced in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
17
Procedure 26(a)(2) on or before November 15, 2013.
With regard to expert testimony
18
All discovery, including depositions for preservation
19
of testimony, is left open, save and except that it shall be so
20
conducted as to be completed by March 21, 2014.
21
“completed” means that all discovery shall have been conducted so
22
that all depositions have been taken and any disputes relevant to
The word
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The court declines the parties’ suggestion to simply
set a further status conference for November due the complexity
of the case (and the fact that despite commencing in 2003, the
case has been stayed for most of its life). Instead, the court
has given the parties. Those dates go through 2014, which gives
the parties more time than should be necessary to get this case
ready for trial. There is no reason to grant defendant Vic
Manufacturing Company’s request to stay discovery until after it
moves for judgment on the pleadings.
3
1
discovery shall have been resolved by appropriate order if
2
necessary and, where discovery has been ordered, the order has
3
been obeyed.
4
the magistrate judge’s calendar in accordance with the local
5
rules of this court and so that such motions may be heard (and
6
any resulting orders obeyed) not later than March 21, 2014.
All motions to compel discovery must be noticed on
7
V.
8
All motions, except motions for continuances, temporary
9
MOTION HEARING SCHEDULE
restraining orders, or other emergency applications, shall be
10
filed on or before May 23, 2014.
All motions shall be noticed
11
for the next available hearing date.
12
refer to the local rules regarding the requirements for noticing
13
and opposing such motions on the court’s regularly scheduled law
14
and motion calendar.
Counsel are cautioned to
15
VI.
FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
16
The Final Pretrial Conference is set for July 21, 2014,
17
at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom No. 5.
18
attended by at least one of the attorneys who will conduct the
19
trial for each of the parties and by any unrepresented parties.
20
The conference shall be
Counsel for all parties are to be fully prepared for
21
trial at the time of the Pretrial Conference, with no matters
22
remaining to be accomplished except production of witnesses for
23
oral testimony.
24
and are referred to Local Rules 281 and 282 relating to the
25
contents of and time for filing those statements.
26
those subjects listed in Local Rule 281(b), the parties are to
27
provide the court with: (1) a plain, concise statement which
28
identifies every non-discovery motion which has been made to the
Counsel shall file separate pretrial statements,
4
In addition to
1
court, and its resolution; (2) a list of the remaining claims as
2
against each defendant; and (3) the estimated number of trial
3
days.
4
In providing the plain, concise statements of
5
undisputed facts and disputed factual issues contemplated by
6
Local Rule 281(b)(3)-(4), the parties shall emphasize the claims
7
that remain at issue, and any remaining affirmatively pled
8
defenses thereto.
9
parties shall also prepare a succinct statement of the case,
10
If the case is to be tried to a jury, the
which is appropriate for the court to read to the jury.
11
VII.
12
The jury trial is set for September 16, 2014, at 9:00
13
a.m.
14
TRIAL SETTING
The parties estimate that the trial will last sixty court
days.
15
VIII. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
16
A Settlement Conference will be set at the time of the
17
Pretrial Conference.
18
the court whether they will stipulate to the trial judge acting
19
as settlement judge and waive disqualification by virtue thereof.
20
All parties should be prepared to advise
Counsel are instructed to have a principal with full
21
settlement authority present at the Settlement Conference or to
22
be fully authorized to settle the matter on any terms.
23
seven calendar days before the Settlement Conference counsel for
24
each party shall submit a confidential Settlement Conference
25
Statement for review by the settlement judge.
26
judge is not the trial judge, the Settlement Conference
27
Statements shall not be filed and will not otherwise be disclosed
28
to the trial judge.
5
At least
If the settlement
1
IX.
MODIFICATIONS TO SCHEDULING ORDER
2
Any requests to modify the dates or terms of this
3
Scheduling Order, except requests to change the date of the
4
trial, may be heard and decided by the assigned Magistrate Judge.
5
All requests to change the trial date shall be heard and decided
6
only by the undersigned judge.
7
DATED: April 14, 2011
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?