Frazier et al v. City of Rancho Cordova et al

Filing 18

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/31/16 ORDERING that the status (pre-trial scheduling) conference is SET for 5/12/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. Not later than 14 days prior to the status conference, the parties shall meet and confer, and file a joint status report. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTIAN J. FRAIZER, et al.,

No. 2:15-cv-0872 TLN KJN PS

12
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

ORDER
v.
CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18

On March 7, 2016, in light of the withdrawal of plaintiffs’ counsel, which left all plaintiffs

19

to proceed in this matter in propria persona, this action was assigned to the undersigned for all

20

appropriate pre-trial proceedings pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). (ECF No. 17.)

21

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

22

1. A status (pre-trial scheduling) conference is set for Thursday May 12, 2016, at 10:00

23

a.m., in Courtroom No. 25 before the undersigned. All parties shall appear by counsel or in

24

person if acting without counsel.

25
26

2. Not later than fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference, the parties shall meet
and confer, and file a joint status report briefly describing the case and addressing the following:

27

a.

Service of process;

28

b.

Possible joinder of additional parties;
1

1

c.

Any expected or desired amendment of the pleadings;

2

d.

Jurisdiction and venue;

3

e.

Anticipated motions and their scheduling;

4

f.

The report required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 outlining the proposed discovery

5

plan and its scheduling, including disclosure of expert witnesses;

6
7

g.

Future proceedings, including setting appropriate cut-off dates for

discovery and law and motion, and the scheduling of a pretrial conference and trial;

8

h.

Special procedures, if any;

9

i.

Estimated trial time;

10

j.

Modifications of standard pretrial procedures due to the simplicity or

11

complexity of the proceedings;

12

k.

Whether the case is related to any other cases, including bankruptcy;

13

l.

Whether a settlement conference should be scheduled;

14

m.

Whether counsel will stipulate to the undersigned acting as settlement

15

judge and waive disqualification by virtue of his so acting, or whether they prefer to have a

16

settlement conference conducted before another judge; and

17
18

n.

Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of

this matter.1
3. Failure to obey the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules,2 or an

19
20

order of this court, may result in dismissal of the action or a judgment of default, monetary

21

sanctions, and/or any other appropriate sanctions. Although the court liberally construes the

22

////

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

While the court is aware that the parties previously filed a joint status report in this action on
June 19, 2015 addressing many of the above topics (ECF No. 10), the parties are directed to file a
new joint status report in light of the subsequent developments in this action and the fact that the
previous report addressed the status of this action on a date that was over nine months prior to the
filing of the present order.
2

A copy of the court’s Local Rules may be obtained from the Clerk’s Office or on the court’s
website at http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/rules/local-rules/.
2

1

pleadings and filings of pro se litigants, they are required to abide by all deadlines and procedural

2

requirements.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 31, 2016

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