Baker v. Credit Control Services, Inc.

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/19/2013 SETTING a Status Conference for 1/8/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan; ALLOWING the parties to file a revised Joint Status Report by 12/24/2013. (Michel, G)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TARA BAKER, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:13-cv-1824-EFB Plaintiff, v. ORDER CREDIT CONTROL SERVICES, INC., Defendant. 17 18 On November 8, 2013, this action was reassigned to the undersigned based on the consent 19 of the parties, and all hearing dates then set before the district judge were vacated. See ECF No. 20 9; see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 305; 28 U.S.C. 636. Because this case has not yet been scheduled 21 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a status (pretrial scheduling) conference will 22 be set before the undersigned. 23 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 24 1. A status (pretrial scheduling) conference is set for January 8, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. in 25 Courtroom No. 8 before the undersigned. 26 2. In light of the parties’ October 29, 2013 joint status report, ECF No. 6, the parties need 27 not file a further status report in advance of the status conference. However, if the parties elect to 28 file a revised status report, any such report shall be filed on or before December 24, 2013. 1 1 3. Counsel are reminded of their continuing duty to notify chambers immediately of any 2 settlement or other disposition. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 160. In addition, the parties are cautioned that 3 pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), opposition to granting a motion must be filed fourteen days 4 preceding the noticed hearing date. The Local Rules further provides that “[n]o party will be 5 entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written opposition to the motion 6 has not been timely filed by that party.” Moreover, Local Rule 230(i) provides that failure to 7 appear may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to the motion or may result in sanctions. 8 Finally, Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for 9 imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of 10 the Court.” 11 DATED: November 19, 2013. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?