Sehic v. Anderson et al

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/13/13 ORDERING that a Telephone Status Conference is SET for 7/26/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DAD) before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd. Each party may, but is not required to, file and serve a separate status report on or before 7/19/13, of no more than 5 pages addressing the current state of the parties' dispute. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

EMIR SEHIC,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. 2:12-cv-3030 DAD

vs.
WILLIAM VAN ANDERSON;
MAYUKA S ANDERSON,

ORDER SETTING STATUS
CONFERENCE

14
15

Defendants

16

/

17

Each of the parties in the above-captioned case have consented to proceed before

18

the assigned magistrate judge. By order filed March 12, 2013, the action was reassigned to the

19

undersigned.

20

On May 24, 2013, the parties appeared before the undersigned, a settlement

21

conference was held, the parties reached a settlement agreement and the terms and conditions of

22

that settlement agreement were placed on the record. On June 4, 2013, plaintiff filed a document

23

with the court indicating that there is now a dispute between the parties over the terms of the

24

settlement agreement that was reached.

25

/////

26

/////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

2

1. A Telephonic Status Conference is set for Friday, July 26, 2013, at 10:00

3

a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No.

4

27, before the undersigned.

5

2. Each party shall appear at the Telephonic Status Conference, either by counsel

6

or, if proceeding in propria persona, on his own behalf. The parties shall contact Pete Buzo, the

7

courtroom deputy of the undersigned magistrate judge, at [phone], no later than 48 hours

8

before the Telephonic Status Conference; a land line telephone number must be provided.

9

3. Each party may, but is not required to, file and serve a separate status report on

10

or before July 19, 2013, of no more than 5 pages addressing the current state of the parties’

11

dispute.

12

4. The parties are cautioned that failure to appear at the status conference will

13

likely result in an order imposing an appropriate sanction.1 See Local Rules 110 and 183; see

14

also Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989) (“once a pro se IFP litigant is in

15

court, he is subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil

16

Procedure. These rules provide for sanctions for misconduct and for failure to comply with court

17

orders.”).

18

DATED: June 13, 2013.

19
20
21
22
23

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.consent\sehic3030.ossc2

24
25
1

26

The Court will drop this matter from the July 26, 2013 calendar if plaintiff files a notice
of voluntary dismissal on or before July 22, 2013.
2