Johnson v. Patel et al

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 08/19/09 DISCHARGING 13 Order to Show Cause and VACATING the 9/2/09 Status Conference. IT IS ORDERED that the defendants shall file a status report within 14 days of the date of this order addre ssing the issues set forth in this order; or in lieu of this requirement, defendants may file, within 14 days of the date of this order, a statement of non-opposition to the dates and other information set forth in plaintiff's 8/19/09 status report.(Streeter, J)

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 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SCOTT N. JOHNSON, vs. Plaintiff, Case No. CIV S-09-0834 LKK EFB PS

JITENDRA PATEL, Individually and d/b/a AAA Residence Inn; ASMITA PATEL, Individually and d/b/a AAA Residence Inn, Defendants. ___________________________/

ORDER

This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 72-302(c)(21). Dckt. No. 9. On July 27, 2009, the undersigned rescheduled the status conference in this action to September 2, 2009, and ordered defendants to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to file a timely status report. Dckt. No. 13. On August 17, 2009, defendants filed a response to the order to show cause and a status report. Dckt. Nos. 14, 15. In light of those filings, the July 27, 2009 order to show cause is discharged. Further, defendants state in their status report that one of the defendants cannot attend the September 2, 2009 status conference due to "college classes" and request that it be rescheduled. //// //// 1

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

Dckt. No. 15, at 2. Accordingly, the September 2, 2009 status conference is vacated.1 Because defendants' August 17, 2009 status report does not address the below matters, within fourteen days of the date of this order, defendants shall file a status report briefly describing the case and addressing the following: a. Progress in service of process; b. Possible joinder of additional parties; c. Expected or desired amendment of pleadings; d. Jurisdiction and venue; e. Anticipated motions and their scheduling; f. The report required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 outlining the proposed discovery plan and its scheduling, including disclosure of expert witnesses; g. Cut-off dates for discovery and law and motion, and dates for pretrial conference and trial; h. Special procedures, if any; i. Estimated trial time; j. Modifications of standard pretrial procedures due to the simplicity or complexity of the proceedings; k. Whether the case is related to any other cases, including bankruptcy; l. Whether a settlement conference should be scheduled; m. Whether counsel will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned to this matter acting as settlement judge and waiving disqualification by virtue of his so acting, or whether they prefer to have a settlement conference conducted before another judge; ////

The status conference is not rescheduled at this time. However, if the court is unable to prepare a Rule 16 Scheduling Order based on the parties' status reports, the matter may be rescheduled at a later date. 2

1

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

n. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of this matter. In lieu of this requirement, defendants may file, within fourteen days of the date of this order, a statement of non-opposition to the dates and other information set forth in plaintiff's August 19, 2009 status report. SO ORDERED. DATED: August 19, 2009

3