Satmarean v. Philips Consumer Luminaries, NA et al

Filing 34

ORDER REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 4, 2013 re 32 Response to Order to Show Cause, filed by Philips Consumer Luminaries, NA, Gabriela Satmarean, 33 Response to Order to Show Cause filed by Scott Rosenberg. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 11/1/13. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10

GABRIELA SATMAREAN,

11

Plaintiff,

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13

vs.

Case No.: 13-CV-02778-YGR
ORDER REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 4,
2013

PHILIPS CONSUMER LUMINARIES, NA,
et al.,

14
15
16

Defendants.
A Case Management Conference and Order to Show Cause Hearing is scheduled for

17

November 4, 2013. Plaintiff and Defendant Philips Consumer Luminaries, NA have filed a Response

18

to Order to Show Cause and Joint Stipulation to Continue Order to Show Cause Hearing and Case

19

Management Conference based on a pending motion filed by Defendant Scott Rosenberg. The Court

20

DENIES the parties’ request for a continuance. As required by the Court’s Standing Order in Civil

21

Cases, “each party shall be represented at case management conferences by counsel with authority to

22

enter into stipulations and make admissions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a) and (c), as well as fully

23

prepared to address all of the matters in the CAND CMC Order and Civil L.R. 16-10(b).”

24

Counsel for Defendant Scott Rosenberg has also filed a Response to Order to Show Cause,

25

wherein he states that Rosenberg elected not to file a Joint Case Management Conference Statement

26

to “avoid any confusion over whether he consents to this Court’s jurisdiction.” Counsel for Scott

27

Rosenberg is hereby ORDERED to personally appear at the conference on November 4, which the

28

Court will not consider to be a general appearance or consent to this Court’s jurisdiction. Counsel

1

shall be prepared to address whether Rosenberg’s pending Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Lack

2

of Personal Jurisdiction and/or for Insufficient Service of Process was timely filed in light of Fed. R.

3

Civ. P. 81(c). Rule 81(c), which applies “to a civil action after it is removed from a state court,”

4

provides as follows:

5
6

After removal, repleading is unnecessary unless the court orders it. A defendant who
did not answer before removal must answer or present other defenses or objections
under these rules within the longest of these periods:

7
8
9

(A) 21 days after receiving--through service or otherwise--a copy of the initial
pleading stating the claim for relief;

10

(B) 21 days after being served with the summons for an initial pleading on file at
the time of service; or

11

(C) 7 days after the notice of removal is filed.

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13
14
15

(Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(2) (emphasis supplied).) Counsel shall address why the pending motion was
not filed until October 18, 2013, over 120 days after the action was removed on June 17, 2013, and
whether such delay constitutes a waiver of the arguments raised in the pending motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Date: November 1, 2013
____________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2