Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00951/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00951-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

GILBERT SALINAS, )

) 2:05-cv-00951-GEB-GGH

)

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER CONTINUING STATUS

v. ) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

) CONFERENCE

GABRIELA AGUIRRE; JOSE JESUS )

RODRIGUEZ; TAHOE PINE CONE )

PLAZA, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED )

PARTNERSHIP and DOES 1 through 10, )

inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff’s Status Report filed November 23, 2005, and the

accompanying Declaration of Christiana Poynter indicate that

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint has been served on each Defendant

and that no Defendant has filed a responsive pleading. (Pl.’s Status

Report at 1-2; Poynter Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4.) Plaintiff also states that he

intends to request entry of default against Defendants Tahoe Pine Cone

Plaza (“Plaza”) and Jose Jesus Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”). (Poynter

Decl. ¶¶ 4, 16.) Further, Plaintiff states that there is an

unresolved “service issue” with Defendant Gabriela Aguirre

(“Aguirre”). (Id. at ¶¶ 9, 16.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s Status

Case 2:05-cv-00951-GEB-GGH Document 25 Filed 12/07/05 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

1 It now appears doubtful that this issue will be

resolved. The declaration of Christiana Poynter indicates that

Plaintiff had not requested entry of default against Defendant

Rodriguez because he was hopeful the “service issue” relating to

Defendant Aguirre, Defendant Rodriguez’s wife, would be resolved. 

(Poynter Decl. ¶¶ 14, 16.) However, after filing his Status

Report Plaintiff requested the Clerk of the Court enter a default

against Defendant Rodriguez. This action seems to indicate that

Plaintiff has given up hope of resolving the “service issue”

relating to Defendant Aguirre other than in a default proceeding.

 

2

Report indicates that this action may be fully scheduled. 

Plaintiff, however, has not shown that the schedule he

proposes is appropriate. Plaintiff’s Status Report failed to address

when and how Plaintiff will litigate default proceedings against

Defendants Plaza and Rodriguez. Furthermore, Plaintiff does not say

when the “service issue” relating to Defendant Aguirre will be

resolved.1 Without elucidation by the Plaintiff as to when and in

what manner he intends to proceed against each Defendant the Court

cannot establish a meaningful Rule 16 scheduling order. Therefore,

the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference set for December 12, 2005,

is rescheduled for January 23, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. The Plaintiff shall

file a further status report no later than January 9, 2006, which

explains when and how Plaintiff intends to litigate default

proceedings, and when and how Plaintiff intends to proceed against

Defendant Aguirre.

Plaintiff shall promptly serve a copy of this Order on

Defendant Aguirre. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 6, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-00951-GEB-GGH Document 25 Filed 12/07/05 Page 2 of 2