Crawford v. Smith's Food and Drug Store Inc

Filing 46

ORDER Denying 43 Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Ruling. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 44 Plaintiff's Motion Initiating Scheduling Meeting is STRICKEN. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Pre-trial Discovery Conference is set for 9/7/2012 10:30 AM in LV Courtroom 3A before Magistrate Judge George Foley Jr. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 8/24/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8

MILTON O. CRAWFORD,

9

Plaintiff,

10

vs.

11

SMITH’S FOOD AND DRUG
STORE, et. al.,

12
Defendant,
13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-00122-GMN-GWF
ORDER
Motion for Ruling (#43)
Motion Initiating Scheduling Meeting (#44)

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Ruling (#43) and

15

Motion Initiating Scheduling Meeting (#44), filed on August 22, 2012. Plaintiff requests the

16

Court allow him to proceed with his claim of Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Plaintiff

17

argues that this claim was included in his Amended Complaint (#16), but the Court never

18

addressed it in its Report and Recommendation (#15). The Court notes that its Report and

19

Recommendation (#15) was issued on May 10, 2012. Since that time, Plaintiff has filed several

20

pleadings with the Court, but has not brought his alleged FMLA claim to the Court’s attention

21

until now. Defendants have already filed its Answer (#36), and the time for additional screening

22

of the Amended Complaint (#16) has past. If Plaintiff wishes to assert a claim under the FMLA,

23

Plaintiff needs to file a motion for leave to amend his complaint in accordance with LR 15-1 and

24

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15.

25

Plaintiff also filed a Motion Initiating Scheduling Meeting (#44). It appears Plaintiff

26

believes the filing of this motion fulfills his requirement to initiate the 26(f) conference under LR

27

26-1. This belief is improper. Only after the parties have met and conferred regarding discovery

28

should the proposed discovery plan and scheduling order be filed with the Court. The Court will

1

therefore strike Plaintiff’s motion as improper. In the interest efficiently moving this case

2

forward, the Court however will conduct a pre-trial discovery conference in this case to discuss

3

discovery matters with the parties. Accordingly,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Ruling (#43) is denied.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion Initiating Scheduling Meeting

6

(#44) is stricken.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Pre-trial Discovery Conference is set for Friday,

8

September 7, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. in Las Vegas Courtroom 3A before the undersigned Magistrate

9

Judge.

10

DATED this 24th day of August, 2012.

11
12
13

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-