Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01566/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01566-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIEIDRA J. THOMAS, No. CIV.S-05-1566 LKK DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS,

et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

This matter came before the court on March 10, 2006, for a

Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference. Plaintiff, proceeding pro

se, appeared on her own behalf. William Bishop appeared on behalf of

defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospital. There was no appearance on

behalf of defendant Hospital & Health Care Workers’ Union Local 250 

(“Local 250"). 

Following the initial status conference in this matter in

December of 2005, the court granted plaintiff up to and including

January 3, 2006, to complete service of process on defendant Local

Case 2:05-cv-01566-LKK -DAD Document 14 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 3
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

 Plaintiff again is reminded that all documents filed in this 1

action must bear the same caption and case number as on page one of

this order; be filed in this court only; and be accompanied by the

required proof of service.

2

250 and file proof of such service with the court. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 4. The court also directed plaintiff to serve the defendant union

with a copy of the order continuing status and the initial Order

Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference filed August 15,

2005.

At the time of the most recent status conference, there was

no indication in the court file that plaintiff had complied with the

court’s order. However, at the status conference hearing plaintiff

represented that she has served defendant Local 250 as directed but

that she mistakenly filed proof of that service in Sacramento County

Superior Court, the court from which this action was removed.1

Considering the circumstances, and as discussed on the

record during the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is

continued to April 14, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 27,

before the undersigned magistrate judge;

2. Plaintiff shall file proof of service of process as to

defendant Local 250 within ten (10) days;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve plaintiff

with a copy of this order at the following address: 8083 Calle

Royale, Sacramento, California 95823. Plaintiff again is reminded of

the requirement that she file with the court and serve a notice of

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01566-LKK -DAD Document 14 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

change of address, providing the court and opposing counsel with her

current address. See Local Rule 83-182(f);

4. The Clerk also is directed to serve a copy of this

order along with the court’s previous orders (Doc. nos. 6 and 11) to

attorney William A. Sokol, Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld, 1001 Marina

Village Pkwy., Ste 200, Alameda, CA 94501-1091;

5. It is requested that Mr. Sokol communicate his position

regarding his representation of defendant Local 250, if any, and the

status of service of process prior to the April 14, 2006 status

conference; and

6. Any party may arrange to appear by telephone at the

next status conference by contacting Pete Buzo at (916) 930-4128.

DATED: March 10, 2006.

DAD:th

DDad1/orders.prose/thomas1566.status.cont2

Case 2:05-cv-01566-LKK -DAD Document 14 Filed 03/13/06 Page 3 of 3