Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00918/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00918-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERARDO PEREZ NIEVES, 

Plaintiff,

v.

LOWE’S COMPANIES, INC., and DOES 1

THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:06-cv-00918 AWI TAG

ORDER REQUIRING JOINT

SCHEDULING REPORT

and

ORDER VACATING AND

RESCHEDULING SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE

I. Background

On July 18, 2006, Defendant Lowe’s Companies, Inc. (“Lowes”) filed a Notice of

Removal of this action from Kern County Superior Court, thereby causing Kern County Superior

Court case number S-1500-CV-258188 to be removed to this Court. (Doc. 1). As a

consequence, and on the same date, this Court issued an Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling

Conference, setting such conference before Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on September 19,

2006. (Doc. 4-1).

Pursuant to the Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference, counsel for all parties

were directed to meet and confer at least twenty days prior to the Mandatory Scheduling

Conference (i.e., by August 30, 2006) in order to draft a Joint Scheduling Report:

 A Joint Scheduling Report, carefully prepared and executed by

all counsel, shall be electronically filed in CM/ECF, one (1) full

week prior to the Scheduling Conference . . . . 

. . .

 At least twenty (20) days prior to the Mandatory Scheduling

Conference , the actual trial counsel for all parties shall conduct

Case 1:06-cv-00918-AWI-TAG Document 12 Filed 09/19/06 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

27

28

and conclude a conference at a time and place arranged by counsel

for the plaintiff(s). This conference should preferably be a

personal conference between all counsel but, due to the distances

involved in this District, a telephonic conference call involving all

counsel is permissible. (Doc. 4-1, pp. 2-3).

Thereafter, on September 13, 2006, the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Theresa

A. Goldner and the Mandatory (Initial) Scheduling Conference was rescheduled to September 21,

2006. (Doc. 11).

In the interim, on September 9, 2006, Defendant Lowes filed a pleading captioned

“Defendant’s Scheduling Report; Declaration of Stephanie Forman.” (Doc. 10). In this

pleading, Defendant Lowes reported that it had repeatedly attempted to contact counsel for

Plaintiff Nieves in order to meet and to prepare a Joint Scheduling Report. (Doc. 10, Decl. of

Stephanie Forman, ¶¶ 3-4). According to the Declaration of Stephanie Forman, correspondence

was sent to Plaintiff’s counsel Lee Arter on August 14, 2006 and again on August 24, 2006. (Id.) 

Receiving no response, Defendant Lowes filed its own “Defendant’s Scheduling Report.” (Doc.

10).

II. Analysis 

As noted above, this Court’s Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference explicitly

directed counsel for all parties to meet prior to the Scheduling Conference set by the Court and to

prepare a Joint Scheduling Report. (Doc. 4-1). The Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling

Conference is consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), which states:

Conference of Parties; Planning for Discovery. . . . [T]he parties must, as soon

as practicable and in any event at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is

held or a scheduling order is due under rule 16(b), confer to consider the nature

and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement

or resolution of the case, to make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule

26(a)(1), and to develop a proposed discovery plan . . . . The attorneys of record

and all unrepresented parties that have appeared in the case are jointly responsible

for arranging the conference, for attempting in good faith to agree on the proposed

discovery plan, and for submitting to the court within 14 days after the conference

a written report outlining the plan. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). As is evident from the pleadings filed to date, neither the Order Setting

Mandatory Scheduling Conference nor Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) has been complied with by Plaintiff

Nieves. 

Case 1:06-cv-00918-AWI-TAG Document 12 Filed 09/19/06 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

27

28

The Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference sets forth -- in bold, capitalized

letters -- a range of possible sanctions for failure to comply:

SHOULD COUNSEL OR A PARTY APPEARING PRO SE

FAIL TO APPEAR AT THE MANDATORY SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE, OR FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE

DIRECTIONS AS SET FORTH ABOVE, AN EX PARTE

HEARING MAY BE HELD AND JUDGMENT OF

DISMISSAL, DEFAULT, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE

JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED, OR SANCTIONS,

INCLUDING CONTEMPT OF COURT, MAY BE IMPOSED

AND/OR ORDERED (Doc. 4-1, p. 8).

Given Plaintiff’s failure to date to comply with the Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling

Conference (Doc. 4-1) and with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties

shall meet and confer as contemplated by both the Order and the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and shall file, by October 5, 2006, a Joint Scheduling Report setting forth -- in one

document -- their discovery plan and all additional information required. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Conference currently set for September

21, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. is VACATED and RESCHEDULED to October 19, 2006, at 9:30 a.m.

before Magistrate Judge Goldner, 1200 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 120, Bakersfield, CA 93309.

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL

RESULT IN THIS COURT’S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE

COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED AND THAT JUDGMENT BE ENTERED

IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00918-AWI-TAG Document 12 Filed 09/19/06 Page 3 of 3