Trahan v. U.S. Bank National Association

Filing 105

ORDER Vacating Case Management Conference, Setting Deadlines, Referring Case to Magistrate Judge for Discovery, and Directing Parties to Meet and Confer re Scheduling. Placeholder Motion Hearing set for 7/11/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Jeffrey S. White. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on April 16, 2014. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JERRY TRAHAN, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 No. C 09-03111 JSW Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, SETTING DEADLINES, REFERRING DISCOVERY, AND DIRECTING PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER RE SCHEDULING v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOC., 13 Defendant. / 14 15 The Court has considered the parties joint status report, dated April 14, 2014, and the 16 case management statement filed on February 14, 2014. The Court VACATES the case 17 management conference scheduled for April 18, 2014. It is FURTHER ORDERED as follows: 18 19 20 1. Given the length of time that this case has been pending in state court, the Court shall not require the parties to exchange initial disclosures. 2. The Court HEREBY REFERS this matter to a randomly assigned Magistrate 21 Judge for the purpose of resolving any and all discovery disputes that may arise during the 22 remainder of this litigation. 23 3. Plaintiff shall file any motion for leave to file an amended complaint by no later 24 than May 16, 2014, and he shall notice that motion on an open and available date on this 25 Court’s calendar. 26 4. Plaintiff states that he intends to renew a motion to dismiss Defendant’s 27 affirmative defenses. Defendant states that it intends to move to de-certify the class. Both of 28 these issues appear to have been resolved by the state court. Accordingly, the Court will require 1 the parties to file motions for leave to file motions for reconsideration before it will consider the 2 substantive motions. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-9. The parties shall file the motions for leave to file 3 motions to reconsider no earlier than June 6, 2014, in the event the California Supreme Court’s 4 ruling in the Duran litigation would impact the Court’s analysis. 5 5. Plaintiff’s motion to approve the survey was pending at the time this case was earlier than June 6, 2014. The Court shall hear that motion on Friday, July 11, 2014 at 9:00 8 a.m. In the event the Court finds the motion suitable for disposition without oral argument, it 9 shall notify the parties in advance of the hearing. If the parties believe the California Supreme 10 Court’s decision in Duran will necessitate supplemental briefing on that motion, they may file a 11 For the Northern District of California removed. The parties shall simultaneously re-file the briefs pending before the state court by no 7 United States District Court 6 motion for leave to submit supplemental briefing after the California Supreme Court issues its 12 opinion. 13 6. The parties are HEREBY ORDERED to meet and confer and submit a proposed 14 schedule with specific dates for: close of fact discovery, close of expert discovery, deadlines to 15 disclose expert reports (opening and rebuttal), deadlines to hear dispositive motions, deadline to 16 submit to an ADR procedure, pretrial conference, and trial. In the event the parties do not agree 17 on a schedule and an ADR procedure, they shall submit a joint report that documents their 18 competing schedules and the reasons for the disagreement. The parties shall submit this joint 19 statement by no later than April 25, 2014. 20 21 7. Finally, the Court ADVISES the parties that it will be unavailable beginning on April 30, 2014, and ending on May 27, 2014. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: April 16, 2014 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 cc: Magistrate Judge Referral Clerk 27 28 2

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?