Heifetz v. Texas Turkeys, Inc. et al

Filing 31

ORDER VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. NO APPEARANCE NEEDED and Counsel to contact CourtCall to cancel telephonic appearance 30 . Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on July 6, 2016. (amkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

SHELBY GAIL HEIFETZ,

Case No. 5:15-cv-05726-EJD

Plaintiff,
9

ORDER VACATING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

v.
10
11

TEXAS TURKEYS, INC., et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
14
15

Having reviewed the parties’ Joint Case Management Conference Statement (Dkt. No. 81),
the court orders as follows:
1.

Any challenge to subject matter jurisdiction or to Plaintiff’s standing to bring this

16

action, or any argument that the claims asserted in the Complaint are moot, must be raised by

17

noticed motion filed according to Civil Local Rule 7-2. As to subject matter jurisdiction and while

18

not definitively deciding the issue, the court observes that federal claims are evident from the face

19

of the complaint. See Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 808 (1988).

20

Defendant Texas Turkeys, Inc.’s (“Texas Turkeys”) request the court issue an order to show cause

21

on any of these issues is DENIED.

22

2.

Similarly, challenges to any settlement between Plaintiff and other defendants

23

under California Code of Civil Procedure 877.6 must be raised by noticed motion filed according

24

to Civil Local Rule 7-2.

25

3.

The parties are advised and reminded that General Order No. 56 governs this

26

action. Accordingly, and since a joint site inspection is scheduled for July 14, 2016, initial

27

disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) must be completed no later than 7

28

1
Case No.: 5:15-cv-05726-EJD
ORDER VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1

days prior according to Paragraph 2 of General Order No. 56. Any dispute concerning initial

2

disclosures or any need for relief related to the joint site inspection is REFERRED to the assigned

3

magistrate judge.

4

4.

In addition, the parties must within 28 days of the joint site inspection meet in

5

person and confer regarding settlement pursuant to Paragraph 4 of General Order No. 56. If a

6

settlement is not reached within 42 days of the site inspection, they must thereafter file a “Notice

7

of Need for Mediation” according to Paragraph 7 of General Order No. 56.

8
9

5.

In light of the matters that must occur before a case schedule can be ordered, the

Case Management Conference scheduled for July 7, 2016, is VACATED. The parties may
request a further Case Management Conference according to Paragraph 8 of General Order No. 56

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

if a settlement is not reached after mediation.

12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 6, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No.: 5:15-cv-05726-EJD
ORDER VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE