Hogan v. City of Sacramento et al

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/15/16 ORDERING Status Conference set for 1/19/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. No later than 1/12/2017 the parties shall file a joint status rep ort. Failure to meaningfully participate in preparation of the joint status report and/or failure to appear at the status conference may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The parties are cautioned that unless and until the dates of the final pretrial conference and trial are continued by a subsequent court order, they should consider those dates firm.(Washington, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DIANTAE HOGAN, 12 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-1933-KJM-KJN PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On February 3, 2016, the assigned district judge, Judge Mueller, issued a pretrial 19 scheduling order providing, inter alia, that all discovery shall be completed by October 14, 2016; 20 dispositive motions shall be heard no later than November 18, 2016; and setting a final pretrial 21 conference and trial before Judge Mueller on April 21, 2017, and June 5, 2017, respectively. 22 (ECF No. 11.) 23 Thereafter, on August 25, 2016, Judge Mueller granted plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to 24 withdraw, and referred the action to the undersigned as the assigned magistrate judge for future 25 proceedings under Local Rule 302(c)(21). (ECF No. 16.) 26 Because Judge Mueller’s August 25, 2016 order did not vacate the operative scheduling 27 order, and neither party requested a continuance of the scheduling order, the time for discovery 28 and dispositive motion practice has now passed. The only operative dates that remain are for the 1 1 final pretrial conference and trial, which remain set before Judge Mueller. 2 Nevertheless, because neither plaintiff nor defendants have made any filing with the court 3 since plaintiff’s counsel was permitted to withdraw, it is unclear whether plaintiff intends to 4 proceed to trial without counsel, whether plaintiff is attempt to locate counsel for purposes of 5 trial, and/or whether the parties are amenable to conducting a settlement conference prior to trial. 6 Thus, the court finds it beneficial to conduct a status conference in this matter. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. A status conference is set for Thursday January 19, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 9 No. 25 before the undersigned. 10 2. No later than January 12, 2017, the parties shall file a joint status report addressing the 11 following issues: 12 (a) Whether plaintiff intends to continue prosecuting this case 13 (b) If plaintiff intends to continue prosecuting this case, whether plaintiff intends to 14 proceed to trial with or without counsel, and if with counsel, the status of 15 plaintiff’s efforts to obtain counsel 16 (c) Whether the parties are amenable to a settlement conference before trial, either 17 conducted by the undersigned (with an appropriate waiver of any disqualification 18 by virtue of acting as the settlement judge and the assigned magistrate judge) or 19 before another magistrate judge 20 (d) Whether or not the dates of the final pretrial conference and trial before Judge 21 Mueller should potentially be continued. 22 3. Failure to meaningfully participate in preparation of the joint status report and/or 23 failure to appear at the status conference may result in the imposition of sanctions, 24 including dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 25 4. The parties are cautioned that unless and until the dates of the final pretrial conference 26 and trial are continued by a subsequent court order, they should consider those dates 27 firm. 28 //// 2 1 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 15, 2016 3 4 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

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?