From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rogers v. Lester

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 28, 2022
2:22-cv-00914 TLN AC (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-00914 TLN AC

11-28-2022

KIM EDWARD ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. KATHERINE LESTER, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

An initial scheduling conference was set for this case on December 7, 2022. ECF Nos. 12, 22. In order to aid in scheduling this case, the parties are required to file a joint status report prior to the initial scheduling conference. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is RE-SET for December 28, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom no. 26 before the undersigned. All parties shall appear by counsel or in person if acting without counsel.

2. Not later than fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference (by December 14, 2022), the parties shall file status reports, preferably a joint status report, 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. Whether counsel will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned to this matter acting as settlement judge and waiving disqualification by virtue of her so acting, or whether they prefer to have a settlement conference before another judge;

n. 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.

4. Defendants are also reminded that they may, if all consent, have this case tried by a United States Magistrate Judge while preserving their right to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge is attached. Consent forms should be returned to the Clerk of the Court within 30 days of this order. Plaintiff has already filed a form. ECF No. 8.

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide copies of the “Consent to Proceed Before United States Magistrate Judge” with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Rogers v. Lester

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 28, 2022
2:22-cv-00914 TLN AC (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2022)
Case details for

Rogers v. Lester

Case Details

Full title:KIM EDWARD ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. KATHERINE LESTER, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 28, 2022

Citations

2:22-cv-00914 TLN AC (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2022)