Farley v. Virga

Full title: WILLIAM D. FARLEY, Plaintiff, v. T. VIRGA, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Apr 10, 2015

2:13-cv-1751 WBS KJN P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2015)

Opinion

WILLIAM D. FARLEY, Plaintiff, v. T. VIRGA, et al., Defendants. No. 2:13-cv-1751 WBS KJN P United States District Court, E.D. California. April 10, 2015

          ORDER

          KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

         Pending before the court is defendants' motion for clarification of the scheduling order. (ECF No. 99.) On March 30, 2015, defendants Meier, Stewart, Scogin, Gonzales, Higgins, Delaney and May filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 95.) The April 2, 2015 scheduling order states that it applies to these defendants. (ECF No. 97.)

         In the pending request, defendants state that on January 30, 2015, defendant Curren filed an answer. (ECF No. 90.) Defendants request clarification regarding whether the scheduling order applies to defendant Curren.

         Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Defendants' motion for clarification (ECF No. 99) is granted;

         2. The April 2, 2015 scheduling order, including all dates set therein, also applies to defendant Curren.