Evanston Insurance Company v. Lexington Insurance Company

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - With the agreement of Judge Piester, the Chief Judge and the other district judges, Judge Kopf has begun handling all magistrate matters previously handled by Judge Piester. As to those cases listed, unless a party files a moti on to request a telephonic planning conference on or before July 10, 2009, no planning conference will be held to discuss the scheduling of the case to trial, and a final progression order will be entered based on the representations set forth in the parties' Rule 26(f) Report. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (LKH)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA IN RE PLANNING CONFERENCES SCHEDULED BEFORE MAGISTRATE JUDGE PIESTER ) ) ) ) )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

With the agreement of Judge Piester, the Chief Judge and the other district judges, Judge Kopf has begun handling all magistrate matters previously handled by Judge Piester. Judge Kopf will do so for the foreseeable future regarding his own cases as well as cases assigned to other district judges. Thus, any magistrate matters previously handled by Judge Piester will be handled by Judge Kopf alone unless otherwise ordered and that is true for cases assigned to Judge Kopf and it is also true for cases assigned to other district judges. The district judge assigned to try the cases identified below has not changed. Telephonic planning conferences are currently scheduled before Magistrate Judge Piester in the following cases: Hird v. Minden Public Schools, 4:08CV3221 Brown v. SSA Security, 4:08CV3233 Loos v. Napolitano, 4:08cv3241 Gerdes v. Chertoff, 4:08CV3246 Manning v. Internal Medicine, 4:08CV3257 TierOne v. USA, 4:08CV3267 Evanston v. Lexington, 4:09cv3011 Hrdlicka v. Merry Maids, 4:09CV3012 Wise v. Estate of Robert Shocker, 4:09cv3031 Sell v. Am2Pat et al., 4:09CV3036 Kyros v. North American Bioproducts, 4:09CV3041 Brown v. Stafford Plaza, 4:09CV3042

Brown et al. v. Hilton Hotels Corp, 4:09CV3044 Rush Creek v. Home Federal et al., 4:09CV3056 Hill v. Village of Loomis, 4:09CV3061 Gentry v. Duckwall-Alco, 4:09CV3062 Brown v. Grandmother's, 4:09cv3088 Morris et al. v. Koleaseco et al., 7:08CV5009 Fisher et al. v. Goynes et al., 8:07CV378 As to these cases, the court intends to cancel the planning conferences and enter a final progression order based on the parties' Rule 26(f) Report of Parties' Planning Conference. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) As to those cases listed above, unless a party files a motion to request a telephonic planning conference on or before July 10, 2009, no planning conference will be held to discuss the scheduling of the case to trial, and a final progression order will be entered based on the representations set forth in the parties' Rule 26(f) Report. The clerk is directed to place a copy of this order in the docket for each of the cases identified above. DATED this 1st day of July, 2009. BY THE COURT: s/Richard G. Kopf United States District Judge

2)

-2-