From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moreno v. APC Towers III, LLC

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 11, 2023
2:23-cv-01597 AC (E.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2023)

Opinion

2:23-cv-01597 AC

09-11-2023

JON MORENO, Plaintiff, v. APC TOWERS III, LLC, Defendant.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case is before the undersigned on the consent of the parties. ECF No. 6. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for October 18, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 26 before the undersigned. All parties shall appear by counsel, and counsel may request telephonic appearance.

2. Not later than fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference, the parties shall file status reports addressing the following matters:

a. Service of process;
b. Possible joinder of additional parties;
c. Any expected or desired amendment of the pleadings;
d. Jurisdiction and venue;
e. Anticipated motions and their scheduling;
f. The report required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 outlining the proposed discovery plan and its scheduling, including disclosure of expert witnesses;
g. Future proceedings, including setting appropriate cut-off dates for discovery and law and motion, and the scheduling of a pretrial conference and trial;
h. Special procedures, if any;
i. Estimated trial time;
j. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due to the simplicity or complexity of the proceedings;
k. Whether the case is related to any other cases, including bankruptcy;
l. Whether a settlement conference should be scheduled;
m. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of this matter

3. The parties are informed that they may elect to participate in the court's Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program (“VDRP”) by contacting the court's VDRP administrator, Sujean Park, at (916) 930-4278 or SPark@caed.uscourts.gov. The parties shall carefully review and comply with Local Rule 271, which outlines the specifications and requirements of the VDRP. The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding possible VDRP participation, and contact Ms. Park to make the necessary arrangements if both parties agree that participation may be beneficial, within 45 days of this order. If the parties agree to participate in VDRP the status conference will be vacated, to be reset if the case fails to settle.

The resources of the VDRP program are limited, and the parties are expected to make good faith efforts to timely and fully exhaust informal settlement efforts prior to initiating participation in the VDRP. The court will look with disfavor upon parties stalling or failing to participate in initial informal discussions, prompting potentially unnecessary participation in the VDRP and straining the program's resources.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Moreno v. APC Towers III, LLC

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 11, 2023
2:23-cv-01597 AC (E.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2023)
Case details for

Moreno v. APC Towers III, LLC

Case Details

Full title:JON MORENO, Plaintiff, v. APC TOWERS III, LLC, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 11, 2023

Citations

2:23-cv-01597 AC (E.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2023)