Kidgell v. County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 98

ORDER CONTINUING PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE; SETTING DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL TO COMPLETE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE. Preliminary Pretrial Conference Statement due by 7/9/2010. Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 7/1 9/2010 11:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose. The Court finds that any further continuances would cause undue delay and prejudice Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff is on notice that this is a final continuance whether or not he secures couns el or his counsel completes the appropriate paper work to be admitted to this Court. It is up to Plaintiff to prosecute his case. ***Deadlines terminated re 95 ORDER. Motions terrminated: 97 MOTION to Continue filed by Gary Howard Kidgell, 90 MOTION to Continue filed by Gary Howard Kidgell. Signed by Judge James Ware on 6/24/2010. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Gary Howard Kidgell, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 08-03396 JW ORDER CONTINUING PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE; SETTING DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL TO COMPLETE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE / United United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 County of Santa Clara, et al., Defendants. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's request for a further continuance of the Preliminary Pretrial Conference that is currently set for June 28, 2010.1 On June 17, 2010, the Court issued an Order Continuing Preliminary Pretrial Conference from June 21 to June 28, 2010 so that Plaintiff could complete the process of securing counsel for this case. (Docket Item No. 95.) In his Request for Further Continuance, Plaintiff represents that he has successfully secured counsel, but that he still requires additional time for his counsel to complete an application for admission pro hac vice. (Request for Further Continuance at 2.) Based on Plaintiff's representations, the Court finds good cause to provide Plaintiff with one final brief continuance. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Request for Further Continuance and orders as follows: (1) On July 19, 2010 at 11 a.m., the parties shall appear for a Preliminary Pretrial Conference. No further extensions of time will be granted for this Conference. (Plaintiff's Request for an Extension of the Preliminary Pretrial Conference, hereafter, "Request for Further Continuance," Docket Item No. 97.) 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (2) On or before July 9, 2010, Plaintiff shall file his Preliminary Pretrial Conference Statement. Since Defendants have already submitted their Statement, it is not necessary for them to submit another Statement jointly with Plaintiff. Plaintiff's Statement shall include, among other things, a proposed trial schedule. (3) On or before July 2, 2010, Plaintiff's counsel shall complete his application for admission pro hac vice. The Court finds that any further continuances would cause undue delay and prejudice Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff is on notice that this is a final continuance whether or not he secures counsel or his counsel completes the appropriate paper work to be admitted to this Court. It is up to Plaintiff to prosecute his case. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: June 24, 2010 JAMES WARE United States District Judge 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: David Michael Rollo david.rollo@cco.sccgov.org Neysa A. Fligor neysa.fligor@cco.sccgov.org Rima Harbans Singh rima.singh@cco.sccgov.org Gary Howard Kidgell 228 Spruce Street Wichita, KS 67214 Dated: June 24, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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?