From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Romeo v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, S.D. California
Dec 19, 2006
06 CV 1505 IEG (WMc) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2006)

Opinion


JOE ROMEO, individually, and CLIFFORD KIDD, individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC, a Delaware Corporation, dba HOME DEPOST U.S.A., INC. and EXPO DESIGN CENTER; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. No. 06 CV 1505 IEG (WMc) United States District Court, S.D. California. December 19, 2006

          ORDER FOLLOWING EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION COMPLIANCE AND NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

          WILLIAM McCURINE Jr. Magistrate Judge.

         On December 19, 2006, the Court convened an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference in the above entitled action. Appearing for Plaintiff were James Patterson, Esq. and Gene Stonebarger, Esq. Appearing for Defendant were Shon Morgan, Esq. and Karen Polyakov, Esq..

         Settlement could not be reached in the case at this time.

         The Court discussed compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and based thereon, issues the following orders:

1. The Rule 26(f) conference shall be completed before January 19, 2007 ;

2. A discovery plan shall be lodged with Magistrate Judge McCurine, Jr. on or before January 29, 2007. Regarding each witness, the discovery plan will include the name, most current address, most current phone number, and a brief description of the subject matter of his/her testimony. The discovery plan will also include the anticipated dates for the completion of both non-expert discovery and expert discovery; and,

3. The date of initial disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1)(A-D) shall occur before February 2, 2007 ;

4. Counsel and parties with full settlement authority are ordered to appear on February 9, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. in the chambers of United States Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr., 940 Front Street, Courtroom C, San Diego, California, 92101, for a Case Management Conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). Full authority to settle means that the individual present at the settlement conference has the unfettered discretion and authority to: 1) fully explore settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement options; 2) agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the parties; 3) change the settlement position of a party; and 4) negotiate monetary awards without being restricted to a specific sum certain.

         Failure of any counsel or party to comply with this Order will result in the imposition of sanctions.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Romeo v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, S.D. California
Dec 19, 2006
06 CV 1505 IEG (WMc) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2006)
Case details for

Romeo v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JOE ROMEO, individually, and CLIFFORD KIDD, individually, on behalf of…

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

Date published: Dec 19, 2006

Citations

06 CV 1505 IEG (WMc) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2006)