Steshenko v. McKay et al

Filing 80

ORDER RE: 76 FUTURE COURT PROCEEDINGS. CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 05/27/2010 SHALL BE CONDUCTED BY TELEPHONE. PARTIES SHALL CALL COURT CONFERENCE AT 866/582-6878 ONE WEEK PRIOR TO THE CONFERENCE TO ARRANGE FOR THEIR TELEPHONIC PARTICIPATION. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

**E-filed 04/15/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

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

GREGORY NICHOLAS STESHENKO, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS MCKAY, et al., Defendants. ____________________________________/

No. C 09-5543 RS ORDER RE FUTURE COURT PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff has submitted a letter requesting that this action be reassigned to a judge sitting in the San Jose Division, in light of the burdens to him arising from traveling to San Francisco to attend court proceedings. Reassignment does not appear to be warranted at this juncture. The Case Management Conference, presently set for May 27, 2010, shall be telephonic. In the event there are motions filed which the Court does not elect to take under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), plaintiff will be permitted to appear by telephone. Finally, plaintiff's declination of magistrate judge jurisdiction and request for reassignment to a district judge appears to be based on a misunderstanding. This action is presently assigned to a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

United States District Judge, the undersigned. Only discovery disputes have been referred to a magistrate judge.

Dated: 04/15/2010 RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

2