Randhawa v. Skylux, Inc., et al.

Filing 137

ORDER re 133 Joint Status Report signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 8/15/2012 : IT IS ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference set for September 4, 2012 is continued to 10/1/2012 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Judge William B. Shubb, and the parties shall file a Joint Status Report no later than 9/17/2012. (See document for further details.) (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo---11
12

MOHIT RANDHAWA aka HARPAL
SINGH; SHANNON CALLNET PVT
LTD,

NO. CIV. 2:09-2304 WBS KJN

13

ORDER
Plaintiffs,

14
v.
15
16
17

SKYLUX INC., INTERACTIVE
INTELLIGENCE, INC., MUJEEB
PUZHAKKARAILLATH, SKYLUX
TELELINK PVT LTD; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive,

18
Defendants.
19

/

20

----oo0oo----

21

In a Joint Status Report filed August 10, 2012, the

22

parties request clarification as to whether 1) the Skylux

23

defendants’ motion to dismiss filed on September 8, 2010 (Docket

24

No. 90) was denied on the merits; and 2) whether the court

25

intended the September 4, 2012 conference to constitute a

26

scheduling conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

27

16(b).

28

In its October 18, 2010 Order, the court denied the
1

1

Skylux defendants’ motion to dismiss because, in the same Order,

2

the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to stay the entire case due

3

to the overlap between the claims against Interactive and the

4

Skylux defendants.

5

addressed the merits of the Skylux defendants’ motion to dismiss

6

and thus the motion was denied without prejudice to it being

7

refiled once the stay was lifted.

8

and the Skylux defendants may file any motion provided for in the

9

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

10

(See Docket No. 102 at 7.)

The court never

The stay has now been lifted

Given the procedural history in this case, the court

11

has yet to hold a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference

12

pursuant to Rule 16(b) and the court intended to set the

13

necessary deadlines and pretrial conference and trial dates at

14

the September 4, 2012 conference.

15

suggest the court should wait to hold a Rule 16(b) conference

16

until after the court rules on any motion to dismiss the Skylux

17

defendants may file, good case management requires the court to

18

establish deadlines to ensure this case proceeds now that the

19

stay has been lifted.

20

Although the Skylux defendants

The court will therefore continue the September 4, 2012

21

conference to October 1, 2012 to give the parties adequate time

22

to confer, agree on a discovery plan pursuant to Rule 26(f), and

23

prepare a joint status report.

24

court’s August 20, 2009 Order Re: Status (Pretrial Scheduling)

25

Conference (Docket No. 4) in preparing their Joint Status Report.

26

The parties are directed to the

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the scheduling conference

27

set for September 4, 2012 is continued to October 1, 2012 at 2:00

28

p.m. and the parties shall file a Joint Status Report no later
2

1

than September 17, 2012.

2

DATED:

August 15, 2012

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3