From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maxwell v. Pendleton

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 30, 2006
No. CIV S-06-0013-FCD-CMK (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-0013-FCD-CMK.

August 30, 2006


ORDER


On May 26, 2006, the court issued an order referring this matter to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 72-302(c)(21) because all of the appearing defendants in the action — at that time Paul Pendleton and Tammie Pendleton — were appearing pro se. Since that order was issued, however, defendants Donna Stefani and Fidelity National Title Company of California have appeared in the action through counsel. In addition, the Pendleton defendants also now have counsel. Therefore, no parties to this action are proceeding pro se and the referral to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21) is hereby withdrawn. This matter shall proceed as a counseled civil case.

The Honorable Frank C. Damrell shall issue an amended scheduling order, as needed. All dates as set in Judge Kellison's scheduling order filed July 20, 2006, shall remain in effect until such a time as the amended order is filed.

The hearing on the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Stefani and Fidelity National Title Company of California, currently set for October 17, 2006, before the undersigned, is hereby vacated. The moving defendants are directed to contact Judge Damrell's chambers regarding re-noticing the motion for hearing on his calendar.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Maxwell v. Pendleton

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 30, 2006
No. CIV S-06-0013-FCD-CMK (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2006)
Case details for

Maxwell v. Pendleton

Case Details

Full title:MAXWELL, Plaintiff, v. PENDLETON, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Aug 30, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-06-0013-FCD-CMK (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2006)