Robert L. Steinberg v. Provident Funding Associates, L.P.

Filing 45

SCHEDULING ORDER. Mediation deadline 9/15/2016. Deadline to add parties or amend the pleadings 10/7/2016. Deadline to file class certification motion 4/21/2017. Class certification opposition 5/19/2017. Class certification reply 6/2/2017. He aring on class certification motion 6/22/2017 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Fact discovery cut-off 3/24/2017. Expert disclosures 7/28/2017. Expert rebuttal 8/25/2017. Expert discovery cut-off 9/29/2017. Deadline to file d ispositive motions 9/29/2017. Pretrial conference statement due 12/22/2017. Pretrial Conference set for 1/5/2018 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland. Jury Trial set for 1/29/2018 - 2/8/2018 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. The Case Management Conference currently scheduled for August 10, 2016 is vacated. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 28, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ROBERT L. STEINBERG, et al., Case No. 15-cv-03743-JST Plaintiffs, 9 v. SCHEDULING ORDER 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 PROVIDENT FUNDING ASSOCIATES, L.P., Defendant. 13 14 15 The Court hereby sets the following case deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10: 16 Event Deadline 17 Mediation deadline (ECF No. 39) September 15, 2016 Deadline to add parties or amend the pleadings October 7, 2016 20 Deadline to file class certification motion April 21, 2017 21 Class certification opposition May 19, 2017 22 Class certification reply June 2, 2017 Hearing on class certification motion June 22, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. 25 Fact discovery cut-off March 24, 2017 26 Expert disclosures July 28, 2017 27 Expert rebuttal August 25, 2017 18 19 23 24 28 Event 1 Deadline 2 Expert discovery cut-off September 29, 2017 3 Deadline to file dispositive motions September 29, 2017 Pretrial conference statement due December 22, 2017 Pretrial conference January 5, 2018 Trial January 29, 2018 Estimate of trial length (in days) Eight 4 5 6 7 8 This case will be tried to a jury.1 9 The Court expresses no view now as to the timing of Provident’s anticipated summary 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 judgment motion. See ECF No. 44 at 4. Counsel may not modify these dates without leave of court. The parties shall comply with 12 13 the Court’s standing orders, which are available at cand.uscourts.gov/jstorders. The parties must take all necessary steps to conduct discovery, compel discovery, hire 14 15 counsel, retain experts, and manage their calendars so that they can complete discovery in a timely 16 manner and appear at trial on the noticed and scheduled dates. All counsel must arrange their 17 calendars to accommodate these dates, or arrange to substitute or associate in counsel who can. Trial dates set by this Court should be regarded as firm. Requests for continuance are 18 19 disfavored. The Court will not consider any event subsequently scheduled by a party, party- 20 controlled witness, expert or attorney that conflicts with the above trial date as good cause to grant 21 a continuance. The Court will not consider the pendency of settlement discussions as good cause 22 to grant a continuance. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 27 28 1 In the parties’ Joint Case Management Statement, Provident contends that “Plaintiffs are not entitled to a jury trial under the terms of the governing loan agreements.” ECF No. 44 at 7. The Court does not determine that issue now. 2 1 The Case Management Conference currently scheduled for August 10, 2016 is vacated. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: July 28, 2016 4 5 6 _______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 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?