Morin v. Hurliman Boat Repair et al

Filing 40

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/3/14 ORDERING that a Mid-Litigation Status Conference is SET for 5/2/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DAD) before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd. Each party may, but is not required to, file a statement addressing the status of the litigation of this action, of no more than five pages in length, on or before 4/25/14. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VAN MORIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-0136 DAD

v.

ORDER

HURLIMAN BOAT REPAIR, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Each of the parties in the above-captioned case consented to proceed before the assigned

17
18

magistrate judge. Accordingly, by order filed April 3, 2013, the action was reassigned to the

19

undersigned.
Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that:

20
21

1. A Mid-Litigation Status Conference is set for Friday, May 2, 2014, at 10:00

22

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

23

27 before the undersigned;
2. Counsel of record shall appear at the Mid-Litigation Status Conference

24
25

telephonically by contacting Pete Buzo, the courtroom deputy of the undersigned magistrate

26

judge, at [phone] at least 48 hours before the Mid-Litigation Status Conference. A land

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

line telephone number must be provided1;

2
3

3. Each party may, but is not required to, file a statement addressing the status of
the litigation of this action, of no more than five pages in length, on or before April 25, 2014; and

4

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

5

telephonically may result in an order imposing an appropriate sanction. See Local Rules 110 and

6

183.

7

Dated: April 3, 2014

8
9
10
11

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.consent\morin0136.mlc.ord.docx

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The court notes that plaintiff’s counsel, Russell S. Humphrey, has failed to appear before this
court in this action on multiple occasions, most recently at the January 31, 2014 hearing of his
motion to withdraw as plaintiff’s attorney. That motion was denied and Mr. Humphrey,
therefore, remains plaintiff’s counsel of record in this action. Mr. Humphrey is cautioned that his
failure to appear at the status conference now scheduled in this matter will result in the imposition
of sanctions.
2