Kern et al v. Moulton

Filing 64

ORDERED the parties shall submit a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order within 30 days of decision of the D's pending # 45 Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, or D's answer, whichever date is earlier. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 12/13/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

GAYLE A. KERN, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SHERYL MOULTON,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 3:11-cv-00296-RCJ-PAL
ORDER

12
13

On December 8, 2011, the court set this matter for a scheduling and status conference for

14

December 13, 2011, at 11:00 a.m., permitting each party to appear telephonically. Michael Pintar

15

appeared telephonically on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Defendant, who is appearing pro se, did not leave a

16

telephone number with the undersigned’s courtroom deputy by 4:00 p.m., December 12, 2011, as

17

instructed in the notice of hearing. See Notice of Hearing (Dkt. #62). The courtroom administrator

18

attempted to reach the Defendant telephonically at the number she provided on the court’s docket.

19

Defendant did not answer and a voice mail message was left. A few minutes later, the Defendant called

20

the undersigned’s chambers and spoke with my judicial assistant who transferred her call into the

21

courtroom. Ms. Moulton advised the courtroom administrator that she did not receive notice of the

22

hearing, believed her due process rights were violated, and was refusing to participate in the hearing.

23

The case was called and a record made of the Defendant’s call and refusal to participate.

24

The court set this case for a scheduling and status conference because the parties had not

25

submitted a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order. On November 7, 2011 the district judge

26

held a hearing on Defendant’s motion to quash service of process, dismiss the complaint, or transfer the

27

case to the Northern District of California. The Minutes of Proceedings indicated the district judge

28

intended to deny the motions but would enter a written order. A written order was entered December 7,

1
2

2011 which prompted this court to set the matter for a scheduling conference.
At today’s status and scheduling conference counsel for Plaintiff advised the court that, although

3

the district judge had decided several of Defendant’s pending motions, there were three additional

4

dispositive motions under submission. Defendant has not yet filed an answer, and therefore, no

5

proposed discovery plan and scheduling order was submitted to the court. As a result, the undersigned

6

advised counsel that the matter would be taken off calendar.

7

A review of the docket reflects that Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Proceed Anonymously

8

(Dkt. #42), Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #45) and Defendant’s Motion for Recusal of the

9

District Judge (Dkt. #47) are now fully briefed and under submission to the district judge. The docket

10

also reflects that the Defendant was electronically served by the Clerk of Court with the notice of

11

today’s hearing at four different e-mail addresses which she has provided.

12

IT IS ORDERED the parties shall submit a proposed discovery plan and scheduling order

13

within 30 days of decision of the Defendant’s pending Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Noerr-Pennington

14

Doctrine (Dkt. #45), or Defendant’s answer, whichever date is earlier.

15

Dated this 13th day of December, 2011.

16
17
18

______________________________________
Peggy A. Leen
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2