Cahill v. United States of America et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 08/03/11 ORDERING that a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is SET for 12/07/11 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan; the parties shall file status reports 14 days prior to the conference. (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JACQUELYN CAHILL, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. CIV. S-11-1500 EFB vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES AIR FORCE; TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE; STANLEY; STANLEY ACCESS TECHNOLOGIES; STANLEY MAGIC DOOR, INC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, ORDER Defendants. / 18 19 On August 2, 2011, this action was referred to the undersigned based on the consent of 20 the parties, and all hearing dates then set before the district judge were vacated. See Dckt. No. 9; 21 see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 305; 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Because this case has not yet been scheduled 22 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a status (pretrial scheduling) conference will 23 be set before the undersigned. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for December 7, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. 26 in Courtroom No. 24 before the undersigned. 1 1 2 2. Not later than fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference, the parties shall file status reports1 briefly describing the case and addressing the following: 3 a. Progress in service of process; 4 b. Possible joinder of additional parties; 5 c. Expected or desired amendment of pleadings; 6 d. Jurisdiction and venue; 7 e. Anticipated motions and their scheduling; 8 f. The report required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 outlining the 9 proposed discovery plan and its scheduling, including disclosure of expert witnesses; 10 11 g. Cut-off dates for discovery and law and motion, and dates for pretrial conference and trial; 12 h. Special procedures, if any; 13 i. Estimated trial time; 14 j. Modifications of standard pretrial procedures due to the simplicity or 15 complexity of the proceedings; 16 k. Whether the case is related to any other cases, including bankruptcy; 17 l. Whether a settlement conference should be scheduled; 18 m. Whether counsel will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned to this matter 19 acting as settlement judge and waiving disqualification by virtue of his so acting, or whether they 20 prefer to have a settlement conference conducted before another judge; 21 n. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of this 22 matter. 23 //// 24 //// 25 26 1 The parties are encouraged, when possible, to file a joint status report. 2 1 3. Failing to obey federal or local rules, or order of this court, may result in dismissal of 2 this action. Even though the court will construe pro se pleadings liberally, pro se litigants must 3 comply with the procedural rules. 4 4. Counsel are reminded of their continuing duty to notify chambers immediately of any 5 settlement or other disposition. See L.R. 160. In addition, the parties are cautioned that pursuant 6 to Local Rule 230(c), opposition to granting of a motion must be filed fourteen (14) days 7 preceding the noticed hearing date. The Local Rule further provides that “[n]o party will be 8 entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written opposition to the 9 motion has not been timely filed by that party.” Moreover, Local Rule 230(i) provides that 10 failure to appear may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to the motion or may result in 11 sanctions. Finally, Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be 12 grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 13 inherent power of the Court.” 14 DATED: August 3, 2011. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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?