White v. City of Vallejo

Full title: CHRISTOPHER WHITE, ZERITA WHITE, G'SHELLE WHITE AND DANTRELL STEVENS…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 14, 2015

2:14-cv-1603 JAM DAD PS (E.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2015)

Opinion

CHRISTOPHER WHITE, ZERITA WHITE, G'SHELLE WHITE AND DANTRELL STEVENS, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., Defendants. No. 2:14-cv-1603 JAM DAD PS United States District Court, E.D. California. September 14, 2015

          ORDER SETTING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE

          DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

         Plaintiffs Christopher White, Zerita White, G'Shelle White and Dantrell Stevens are proceeding pro se in the above entitled action. The case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendants have filed answers.

         Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, IT IS ORDERED that:

         1. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for Friday, October 16, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned.

         2. All parties are required to appear at the Status Conference, either by counsel or, if proceeding in propria persona, on his or her own behalf. Any party may appear at the status conference telephonically if the party pre-arranges such appearance by contacting Pete Buzo, the courtroom deputy of the undersigned magistrate judge, at (916) 930-4128, no later than 48 hours before the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference; a land line telephone number must be provided.

         3. Plaintiffs shall file and serve status reports on or before October 2, 2015, and defendants shall file and serve a status report on or before October 9, 2015. Each party's status report shall address all of the following matters:

a. Progress of service of process;

b. Possible joinder of additional parties;

c. Possible amendment of the pleadings;

d. Jurisdiction and venue;

e. Anticipated motions and the scheduling thereof;

f. Anticipated discovery and the scheduling thereof, including disclosure of expert witnesses;

g. Future proceedings, including the setting of appropriate cut-off dates for discovery and for law and motion, and the scheduling of a final pretrial conference and trial;

h. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due to the relative simplicity or complexity of the action;

i. Whether the case is related to any other case, including matters in bankruptcy;

j. Whether the parties will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned to this matter acting as settlement judge, waiving any disqualification by virtue of his so acting, or whether they prefer to have a Settlement Conference before another magistrate judge;

k. Whether the parties intend to consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge; and

l. Any other matters that may aid in the just and expeditious disposition of this action.

4. The parties are cautioned that failure to file a status report or failure to appear at the status conference may result in an order imposing an appropriate sanction. See Local Rules 110 and 183.