Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01786/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01786-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN JACOB DE LA TORRE and 

ZALEEYA DE LA TORRE, 

individually and as decedent 

Juan De La Torre’s successors 

in interest, minors by and 

through their Guardian Ad 

Litem, VIVICA GONZALEZ; 

VIVICA GONZALEZ, an 

individual; and GRACIELA 

ARELLANO, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, 

a publicly traded Delaware 

corporation; SWIFT 

TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC, 

a Delaware Limited Liability 

Company; SWIFT TRANSPORTATION 

CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, a 

Delaware Limited Liability 

Company; INTERSTATE EQUIPMENT 

LEASING, LLC, a Delaware 

Limited Liability Company; 

EDWARD GREER, JR., an 

individual; SWIFT LEASING 

CO., LLC (DOE NO. 1); FIERRO 

TRUCKING II, LLC (DOE NO. 2); 

JOSE ANGEL MARTINEZ (DOE NO. 

3); and DOES 4 through 50, 

inclusive,,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-01786-GEB-DAD

ORDER CONTINUING STATUS 

(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) 

CONFERENCE; FED. R. CIV. P. 4(M) 

NOTICE

The Joint Status Report filed November 25, 2013,

reveals this case is not ready to be scheduled. Therefore, the 

Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference scheduled for hearing on 

Case 2:13-cv-01786-GEB-DAD Document 37 Filed 12/03/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

December 9, 2013, is continued to March 31, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. A 

further joint status report shall be filed no later than fourteen 

(14) days prior to the Status Conference.

Further, Plaintiffs are notified under Rule 4(m) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that failure to serve Defendant 

Jose Angel Martinez with process within the 120 day period 

prescribed in that Rule may result in the unserved Defendant

being dismissed. To avoid dismissal, on or before March 17, 2014, 

Plaintiffs shall file proof of service for this Defendant or a 

sufficient explanation why service was not completed within Rule 

4(m)’s prescribed service period.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2013

Case 2:13-cv-01786-GEB-DAD Document 37 Filed 12/03/13 Page 2 of 2