Driver v. Pape Kenworth et al

Filing 58

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/1/2020 ORDERING that the parties are instructed to review the dates and deadlines contained in the current 49 scheduling order. The parties are instructed to discuss amongst themselves whethe r these dates are still workable; if the dates are no longer feasible the parties are advised to file a joint proposal modifying the scheduling order. If the parties cannot reach a consensus they are instructed to file their own proposals, and propos ed orders, for the court's consideration. If the court does not receive any modification requests from the parties within twenty-one (21) days of this order, the court will presume the current scheduling order is agreeable to the parties. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 ROGER DRIVER,
11

Case No. 2:17-cv-01968-KJN

Plaintiff,
ORDER

12

v.

13 PAPE TRUCKS, INC. an Oregon
Corporation;
14
Defendant.
15
16 PAPE TRUCKS, INC.
17
18

Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.

19 JOMAR INVESTMENTS, INC. dba NEW
LIFE TRANSPORT PARTS CENTER, and
20 ROES 1-10, Inclusive,
21

Third-Party Defendants.

22
23 ACCIDENT FUND INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
24
Plaintiff-in-Intervention,
25
v.
26
PAPE TRUCKS, INC.,
27
Defendant.
28

1

The court is in receipt of intervenor Accident Fund Insurance Company of America’s

2 complaint and consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 55, 56.) Given the current
3 stage of litigation, the parties are instructed to review the dates and deadlines contained in the
4 current scheduling order. (ECF No. 49.) The parties are instructed to discuss amongst themselves
5 whether these dates are still workable; if the dates are no longer feasible the parties are advised to
6 file a joint proposal modifying the scheduling order. If the parties cannot reach a consensus they
7 are instructed to file their own proposals, and proposed orders, for the court’s consideration. If the
8 court does not receive any modification requests from the parties within twenty-one (21) days of
9 this order, the court will presume the current scheduling order is agreeable to the parties.
10

IT IS SO ORDERED

11 Dated: June 1, 2020
12
13
14
15
/1968.driver

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2