Cuviello v. City of Vallejo et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/10/2017 ORDERING No pretrial scheduling order will issue at this time. Within 60 days from the date of this order, defendants shall file their proposed motion addressing their allegation that so me or all of this action is precluded by the judgment in the California state court action. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to defendants' motion within 30 days of defendants' filing that motion. Defendants shall file a reply, if any, 14 days thereafter. The court will issue a pretrial scheduling order, if necessary, on the court's own motion at a later time after the court has sought further input from the parties regarding the scheduling of this matter subsequent to the resolution of defendants' proposed motion.(Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH P. CUVIELLO.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-2584-KJM-KJN (PS)

ORDER

v.
CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On March 9, 2017, this case was before the undersigned for a status (pretrial scheduling)

17
18

conference. Plaintiff appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Frank Splendorio appeared on behalf

19

of defendants. During the status conference, the court raised the issue of whether defendants

20

intend to file a dispositive motion in this matter regarding their allegation that some or all of

21

plaintiff’s claims or the issues presented in this action are precluded by a judgment entered in an

22

action involving plaintiff in California state court. When addressing the issue of whether a

23

pretrial scheduling order should be issued in this action in light of defendants’ intention to file

24

such a motion, the parties agreed that a schedule should not be issued until that proposed motion

25

is resolved.

26

////

27

////

28

////
1

1
2

Accordingly, and for the reasons discussed on the record during the status conference, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1. No pretrial scheduling order will issue at this time.

4

2. Within 60 days from the date of this order, defendants shall file their proposed motion

5

addressing their allegation that some or all of this action is precluded by the judgment

6

in the California state court action.1 Plaintiff shall file an opposition to defendants’

7

motion within 30 days of defendants’ filing that motion. Defendants shall file a reply,

8

if any, 14 days thereafter.2

9

3. The court will issue a pretrial scheduling order, if necessary, on the court’s own

10

motion at a later time after the court has sought further input from the parties

11

regarding the scheduling of this matter subsequent to the resolution of defendants’

12

proposed motion.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: March 10, 2017

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1

25
26
27
28

This motion may take the form of a motion to dismiss, motion for judgment on the pleadings, or
any other dispositive motion, or a motion to stay this action, whichever of these motions
defendants believe appropriate to address the issue.
2

As noted during the hearing, plaintiff is not precluded from filing a motion for preliminary
injunction or any other cognizable request for relief prior to defendants’ deadline to file their
motion.
2