Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02471/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02471-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DEV PATEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-2471-KJN

ORDER

 On July 20, 2016, the assigned district judge issued an order vacating all dates thenscheduled in this action and reassigning this action to the undersigned for all purposes, including 

trial, based on the parties’ statements of consent to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 

Judge. (ECF Nos. 11, 13, 14.)1 No Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Conference has yet occurred in 

this action, and no Scheduling Order is yet in place. 

 Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Local Rule 240, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Within 28 days of this order, the parties shall meet and confer about the mandatory 

disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, if they have not already done so. 

 

1

This action proceeds before the undersigned as a result of the parties’ voluntary consent to the 

jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge (ECF Nos. 11, 13). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 73; E.D. Cal. Local Rule 301.

Case 2:15-cv-02471-KJN Document 17 Filed 10/18/16 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

27

28

2

2. A Status (Pre-trial Scheduling) Conference is set for December 1, at 10:00 a.m., 

in Courtroom No. 25 before the undersigned. 

3. Not later than fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference, the parties shall 

file status reports briefly describing the case and addressing the following: 

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. Modifications of standard pretrial procedures 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 his so acting, or 

whether they prefer to have a settlement conference conducted before another judge; and 

n. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of 

this matter.

4. Failure to obey the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or 

an order of this court, may result in dismissal of the action or other appropriate sanctions. 

5. All parties and counsel are reminded of their continuing duty to notify chambers 

immediately of any settlement or other disposition. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 160. In addition, 

Case 2:15-cv-02471-KJN Document 17 Filed 10/18/16 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

27

28

3

the parties are cautioned that pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), a written opposition to granting of a 

motion must be filed fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed hearing date. The Rule further 

provides that “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if 

written opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” Moreover, Local Rule 

230(i) provides that failure to appear may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to the motion or 

may result in sanctions. Finally, Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local 

Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or 

within the inherent power of the Court.” 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: October 18, 2016 

 

Case 2:15-cv-02471-KJN Document 17 Filed 10/18/16 Page 3 of 3