Martin v. Foulk et al

Filing 39

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 07/10/18 ORDERING ( Discovery due by 11/16/2018, Dispositive Motions filed by 2/15/2019.) (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BEN ORLANDO MARTIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-1929-KJM-EFB P

ORDER

v.
FRED FOULK, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

On May 30, 2018, the court granted defendants’ Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order

18

and Stay Discovery pending the outcome of a settlement conference set for July 5, 2018. ECF

19

No. 36. The settlement conference did not result in a settlement. Accordingly, the court must set

20

a new discovery deadline and dispositive motion deadline.

21

It is HEREBY ORDERED that:

22

1. The parties may conduct discovery until November 16, 2018. Any motions necessary

23

to compel discovery shall be filed by that date. All requests for discovery pursuant to Fed. R.

24

Civ. P. 31, 33, 34, or 36 shall be served not later than September 14, 2018.

25
26
27
28

2. If plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint, he must file any motion to amend no
later than September 14, 2018.1
1

Any motion to amend must be accompanied by a proposed amended complaint that is
rewritten or retyped so that it is complete in itself without reference to any earlier filed complaint.
1

1

3. Dispositive motions shall be filed on or before February 15, 2019. Motions shall be

2

briefed in accordance paragraph 8 of the order filed November 29, 2017 and L.R. 230(l). Failure

3

to timely file an opposition or statement of no opposition to such a motion may be deemed a

4

waiver of opposition to the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions. L.R. 230(l).

5

4. The court will schedule pretrial proceedings, if necessary, upon the resolution of any

6

pretrial motions filed. Requests to modify this schedule will be looked upon with disfavor and

7

must be supported by good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).

8

DATED: July 10, 2018.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

L.R. 220. This is because an amended complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once
an amended complaint is filed, the earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the
case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint
supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v.
Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967)).
2