JL Audio, Inc. v. Saif et al

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/30/2017 ORDERING Status Conference set for 1/24/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire. The parties shall file status reports 14 days prior to the Status Conference. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form)(Hunt, G)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JL AUDIO, INC., 12 13 14 15 No. 2:16-cv-0377 WBS AC Plaintiff, v. ORDER SAIF et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for January 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in 19 courtroom no. 26 before the undersigned. All parties shall appear by counsel or in person 20 if acting without counsel. 21 22 2. Not later than fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference, the parties shall file status reports addressing the following matters: 23 a. Service of process; 24 b. Possible joinder of additional parties; 25 c. Any expected or desired amendment of the pleadings; 26 d. Jurisdiction and venue; 27 e. Anticipated motions and their scheduling; 28 f. The report required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 outlining the proposed 1 1 discovery plan and its scheduling, including disclosure of expert witnesses; 2 g. Future proceedings, including setting appropriate cut−off dates for discovery and 3 law and motion, and the scheduling of a pretrial conference and trial; 4 h. Special procedures, if any; 5 i. Estimated trial time; 6 j. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due to the 7 simplicity or complexity of the proceedings; 8 k. Whether the case is related to any other cases, including bankruptcy; 9 l. Whether a settlement conference should be scheduled; 10 m. Whether counsel will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned to this matter 11 acting as settlement judge and waiving disqualification by virtue of her so acting, 12 or whether they prefer to have a settlement conference before another judge; 13 n. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of this 14 matter 15 3. The parties are informed that they may elect to participate in the court’s Voluntary 16 Dispute Resolution Program (“VDRP”) by contacting the court’s VDRP administrator, 17 Sujean Park, at (916) 930-4278 or SPark@caed.uscourts.gov.1 The parties shall carefully 18 review and comply with Local Rule 271, which outlines the specifications and 19 requirements of the VDRP. The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding 20 possible VDRP participation, and contact Ms. Park to make the necessary 21 arrangements if both parties agree that participation may be beneficial, within 45 22 days of this order. If the parties agree to participate in VDRP the status conference will 23 be vacated, to be reset if the case fails to settle. 24 4. The parties are also informed that they may, if all consent, have this case tried by a United 25 26 27 28 1 The resources of the VDRP program are limited, and the parties are expected to make good faith efforts to timely and fully exhaust informal settlement efforts prior to initiating participation in the VDRP. The court will look with disfavor upon parties stalling or failing to participate in initial informal discussions, prompting potentially unnecessary participation in the VDRP and straining the program’s resources. 2 1 States Magistrate Judge while preserving their right to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of 2 Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge is 3 attached. Consent forms should be returned to the Clerk of the Court within 30 days of 4 this order. 5 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide copies of the “Consent to Proceed Before 6 United States Magistrate Judge” with this order. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED: November 30, 2017 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?